Reason I’m asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say “city” think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn’t seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I’m not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don’t overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.

I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don’t see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.

Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the “landlords are bad” sentinment?

  • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Then landlords should send me an itemized invoice that details each of the expenses incurred while I’ve been a tenant, a breakdown detailing how any rent payments cover the cost of those expenses, and a payment plan that we can negotiate to ensure both parties are getting fair deals.

    Or they should give me equity in the property based on how much I pay in rent.

    But they shouldn’t simply charge an amount based on nothing other than “the market”. That number never equates to the amount of work they put in, and makes them parasitic.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      We already agreed that market rate is too high. What I’m trying to convince you of is that there exists a non-zero positive value that is reasonable to charge someone as rent. It sounds like you understand now how that number comes about and why it isn’t zero, right? How to ensure that the deal is fair is a whole other matter. The point is that such a deal exists.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        What I’m trying to convince you of is that there exists a non-zero positive value that is reasonable to charge someone as rent.

        And I’ve already told you I don’t agree. Paying a non-zero amount of rent is always parasitic.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I wouldn’t be trying to convince you of it if you agreed, would I?

          What’s this business about itemized bills to make them fair if the bills are zero?

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Landlords don’t do that. Until they do, they’re parasites.

            Also, I can’t tell if you’ve realized by now, but everything I’ve been describing as ways to make landlording “fair” is just a roundabout description of ownership.

            • howrar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              14 hours ago

              We’re not talking about what they currently do though. The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic. Where the threshold lies between parasitic and non-parasitic.

              So far, I understand that you’re convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don’t understand is why*. We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

              * Mainly to understand how a system with such a rule can make sense.

              • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic.

                Sell their properties to their tenants, or grant tenants equity in the property based on how much they pay in rent (ie, co-ownership).

                So far, I understand that you’re convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don’t understand is why*.

                For an exchange to not be parasitic, both parties must gain something equal to what they lose. This, by definition, means that a renter must be able to pay zero dollars for rent in months where the landlord doesn’t have to make a mortgage payment and doesn’t need to do any maintenance on the property.

                We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

                As I’ve already said, landlords don’t provide a service equivalent to the payment provided, and the indefinite nature of a lease makes it impossible for a landlord to ever provide value equal to what a renter pays. As long as a tenant lives in a rented space, they have to pay a fee for the privilege, even if they’ve paid enough to pay for the mortgage many times over. You can’t convince me that a landlord can provide potentially multiple properties worth of value over the span of a lease.