You can relinquish your property if you do not like the conditions of your arrangement. No one is forcing you to be a landlord and “only” take in a meager profit. You shouldn’t even be profiting off people simply living, so suck it up, buttercup. And nobody is referring to you when they’re talking about greedy corporate landlords. They’re mostly talking about Blackstone specifically, and other big companies that follow the Blackstone playbook.
No one is forcing you to be a landlord and “only” take in a meager profit.
You don’t understand: I’m not even taking in a meager profit - let alone a fat one. I’m taking a loss.
If I have a tenant in the property, on average I’m taking a loss because on average, tenants cost me more than they bring in.
If I don’t rent the property (assuming it was even legal) then I lose money in maintenance costs and taxes.
Your little quotes around “only” hint at what you think: that all landlords get filthy rich on the tenants’ backs. Many politicians like to spread that idea. While there are some tenants and agencies who make obscene profits and should be reined in, the vast majority of landlords are small property owners like me who put their money into something to avoid losing it to inflation, and instead are losing it to bad tenants.
But by all means, keep thinking landlords are sitting on piles of money and profiteering from the poor tenants. It’s so much more convenient to see the world in black and white.
Yeah! All these renters can simply go buy a house! What exactly is your plan here? Crashing this market with no survivors?
Some landlords are decent people and they’re offering a service for which they deserve a profit. Save your ire for the banks and major corps buying up all the housing, driving up prices and making home ownership unviable.
You still contribute to the problem. So what if others cause even more damage. You’ll still never convince me it is in any way ethical to profit off of owning somebody else’s home. That service you mention? I absolutely disagree that profiting off of another person’s need for shelter is a service. It’s exploitation. And I can’t help but feel like that’s pretty much the opposite of a service.
The whole idea is terrible. So sick of a system that rewards greed and punishes altruism.
And, no, the buyer will be the highest bidder, which will likely be a corporation. You want to do some good? Refuse to sell to any company, only to an individual. But then you can’t maximize your profit…boo hoo.
You can relinquish your property if you do not like the conditions of your arrangement. No one is forcing you to be a landlord and “only” take in a meager profit. You shouldn’t even be profiting off people simply living, so suck it up, buttercup. And nobody is referring to you when they’re talking about greedy corporate landlords. They’re mostly talking about Blackstone specifically, and other big companies that follow the Blackstone playbook.
You don’t understand: I’m not even taking in a meager profit - let alone a fat one. I’m taking a loss.
If I have a tenant in the property, on average I’m taking a loss because on average, tenants cost me more than they bring in.
If I don’t rent the property (assuming it was even legal) then I lose money in maintenance costs and taxes.
Your little quotes around “only” hint at what you think: that all landlords get filthy rich on the tenants’ backs. Many politicians like to spread that idea. While there are some tenants and agencies who make obscene profits and should be reined in, the vast majority of landlords are small property owners like me who put their money into something to avoid losing it to inflation, and instead are losing it to bad tenants.
But by all means, keep thinking landlords are sitting on piles of money and profiteering from the poor tenants. It’s so much more convenient to see the world in black and white.
Yeah! All these renters can simply go buy a house! What exactly is your plan here? Crashing this market with no survivors?
Some landlords are decent people and they’re offering a service for which they deserve a profit. Save your ire for the banks and major corps buying up all the housing, driving up prices and making home ownership unviable.
You still contribute to the problem. So what if others cause even more damage. You’ll still never convince me it is in any way ethical to profit off of owning somebody else’s home. That service you mention? I absolutely disagree that profiting off of another person’s need for shelter is a service. It’s exploitation. And I can’t help but feel like that’s pretty much the opposite of a service.
The whole idea is terrible. So sick of a system that rewards greed and punishes altruism.
And, no, the buyer will be the highest bidder, which will likely be a corporation. You want to do some good? Refuse to sell to any company, only to an individual. But then you can’t maximize your profit…boo hoo.