- cross-posted to:
- bertstrips@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- bertstrips@lemm.ee
You must log in or # to comment.
CAPITAL-ism is aimed and designed to benefit those with the capital.
I hate this about our system. To combat this i am sharing equity with the guy that rents a room. I’m tracking how much his rent payments go to paying off the mortgage (which I can make myself, it’s just a larger house with rooms to spare) he will get a check based off the percent he paid off on sale, or a percentage of revenue if we end up keeping and paying it off years later. Finance people think I’m crazy giving up that much equity. I just hated tossing rent money to the void, so I figured now that I’m in a position to change my little corner of the world, I will.
The finance people (and sadly, many many others) think making the number bigger is a more important and worthwhile goal than making your corner of the world a better place. So good on you for being a compassionate human!
It doesn’t matter what individuals think in the system, the system moves regardless because if they don’t take advantage of it, others will and will supercede them. In this manner, Capital functions almost like a god that is actually worshipped.
Individuals being compassionate within a horrible system will not influence the system overall, though it doesn’t mean compassion isn’t worth it.
Yeah I agree with that. Relying on individual compassion to fix real estate probably makes even less sense than relying on churches and charity to fix poverty and hunger.
I’m still in favor of making things better in one’s little corner of the world, because even just looking at it selfishly it tends to make your life and your mental health better too.
Have you consulted with a lawyer about this? The laws differ from place to place, but I’d be worried the equity you give him may also grant him some sort of claim on the house, which would mean he gets a say on financial things related to the real estate. This can complicate things in the future.
Also - what does “percentage of revenue if we end up keeping and paying it off years later” mean? That after he leaves you will pay him for his share in your house?
I have and officially on paper he is a normal renter. Since this kind of deal doesn’t happen there’s really no system so his payout is a handshake deal on sale, as of now only around 8%. As for if the property is kept, once fully paid off he would receive a yearly dividend of what was made off rent, which wouldn’t be much as we won’t charge much above operating and maintenance cost. Truthfully keeping it is the less likely option as we would like to sell so he can walk away with a decent down payment on his own place.
So if you don’t sell it, and instead rent it out to other people, he’d get a portion of the rent the future tenant pays? And I don’t supposed said future tenant will also get equity?
I’m still working on a good way to provide value to a tenant for the rent they pay for a paid off property. Once it’s paid off I only want to be charging what it takes to maintain plus a little more for unexpected problems. But again, keeping it is the less likely scenario. Down payments on their own place is the goal!
That’s super cool, I’ve wanted to do something similar like this but never have had the opportunity.
The Nature of Capitalism… https://youtu.be/WseyrYuD8ao
Rich people who lived simply, “not underdeveloped, over exploited.”
The bananas were a nice touch. It’s sickening how politicians are using terms like “banana republic” divorcing them from actual meaning. I almost said, “and kangaroo court,” but caught myself, before typing “court,” since for a lot of North Americans struggling for any justice get that, for instance the college protesters.
They call countries banana republics, from what could be described as oil and banking republics with just a small modification or two, without a hint of irony.
You know it!
Elmo: Let me introduce you to the revolutionary who taught me all this.
*knocks on trash can
I’m not sure if this is an Oscar reference or a Zizek reference and either way I’m here for it.
I like to think you’d find both of them inside the trashcan of ideology.
Perhaps they both would find some agreement with Diogenes. If poverty is virtuous why not practice it?
Oh Diogenes is definitely in the trash can, too. I mean, isn’t all belief?
Great theory until you get removed from your home trying to make a point because the family of 3 with nowhere else to go doesn’t have the luxury of caring about things like this thanks to the broke ass system we all reside in.
Great theory until you get removed from your home trying to make a point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_strike
When you get the whole building involve, it can be surprisingly effective.
the family of 3 with nowhere else to go doesn’t have the luxury of caring about things like this
You don’t think a family of 3 cares when their rents double over five years while their wages barely budge?
No, I didn’t say that. I said a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it and you’re too busy making a point to pay rent.
This is true. So not sure what point any of what you said serves, though you’re not wrong.
Also, my grandma lived inna building where 90% of the tenants did this, came together and made their demands and refused to pay rent all together.
They were all removed systematically.
Not saying it never works, but it’s alot for the average working class American to risk.
a family of 3 is going to take your house if they can afford it
Why do you think anyone can afford these homes?
I’m not arguing with you clearly you’re just missing the point purposely or trying to strawman and move goalposts.
Obviously people can afford these homes or 100% of America’s middle class would be homeless.
you’re just missing the point purposely or trying to strawman and move goalposts
Reads like a Ben Shapiro rant.
Obviously people can afford these homes
Why would states need to implement a vacancy tax on speculative properties if people could afford them?
Seems to be an increasingly popular strategy for reducing homelessness. San Francisco could get 90% of its homeless off the streets with the country’s fiercest housing speculation tax, but landlords are already fighting it tooth and nail
So the point you kept missing I’ll throw you a bone man.
Someone can afford the home you’re in. This “strategy” is only effective if everyone’s on board. Otherwise a new family will be in there on the heels of your feet.
Someone can afford the home you’re in.
I’ve got half a dozen units on my block that are selling above the clearing price. They’ve been vacant for years. This is speculative real estate. The only people who can afford it are the developers and investors looking to accumulate housing stock on the gamble that someone will be able to pay the markup at some point in the future.
It is virtually impossible to work individually against landlords. Instead, form or join a tensnts’ union. And maybe some orgs opposed to landlordism.
They’re describing a job in that scenario too lol.
Yes, people lose their shit once they stop doing their job lol. Landlords in their version are effectively building mechanics and paper pushers keeping their property above board so people can live in it. Most of them I knew all had jobs outside of it too because it doesn’t pay the bills lol.
Yes, it would be phenomenal if they dropped all their extra money into the stock market like your average person but they diversified or put it into equity instead since they didn’t trust stock or had houses willed to them.
I get when people talk about slumlords, or giant corpos. But I’ve had to quote it before that the lionshare of them are people like I mentioned above with corpos buying out more and more in recent years because they’re just as poor as everyone else.
Meanwhile even the most liberal people on here get baited thinking they’re scum. Meanwhile billionaires are still laughing at the poors fighting each other thinking one job is better than other or villifying entire professions still.
Unionize. Reform land and property ownership. Vote in as many Progressive > Democrats to help make that happen. Vote yes on school ballot measures even if you get taxes. Run for government yourself if you loathe who represents you. Grassroot campaigns are hard as hell with a huge uphill battle, but poor people aren’t excluded from government.
Meanwhile billionaires are still laughing at the poors fighting each other thinking one job is better than other or villifying entire professions still.
Landlording isn’t a job.
How equity works for retirement vs conventional stock.
https://newsilver.com/the-lender/how-many-rental-properties-to-retire/
https://realwealth.com/learn/how-many-rental-properties-to-make-100k/
Who are you responding to, bud?
Yeah, they’re not going to suddenly gain $50k+ cash for a down-payment to replace their home. Yes, a mortgage should be cheaper than rent but a renter probably can’t save an extra 3 year’s worth of rent to put it down.
I mean, this is how businesses work in general. If you don’t buy their products/services, then they wouldn’t be able to continue providing them.
I understand that we’re trying to draw attention to exploitative landlords, but if anyone can afford to keep their property regardless of whether or not you pay rent, it’s the exploitative ones.
The problem is that landlords don’t create value, they seek to endlessly profit off of one time labor. Rent-seeking creates no real Value of any substance.
That’s the naivete of the Internet talking. Of course landlords create value; they do so in exactly the same way lenders create value: they absorb risk by amortizing upfront costs and charge a premium to do so.
If you didn’t agree that it’s an ethical way to participate in the economy, say that. Don’t try to pass off a moral judgment as an objective truth.
There’s no Value created by risk, that’s an ad-hoc justification for profiting endlessly off of labor performed one time long ago.
car and house Insurance both provide value by reducing the capital investment required to continue having an item, landlords reduce the upfront cost of housing by charging a continuous fee instead of a lump sum.
Insurance is perhaps the peak of Financial Capital masquerading as Value.
what about banks?
Same problem, arguably far worse. Consider reading Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Banks play a huge part in the dominance of Financial Capital.
Houses are not “one time labor.”. Housing requires constant scheduled maintenance and upkeep over time.
Not to mention the financing required to pay for it all,which is normally spread over 30 years.
Building a house is one time. Maintenance creates Value, yes, but one only needs to compare the cost of maintaining a house with the cost of renting it to see that the vast majority of profits come from rent-seeking. It’s non-productive extraction.
Landlords also do repair and maintenance (jokes aside) to maintain the property in good working order / habitability.
At least, they are generally required by law to do so. Your laws may vary.
Landlords also prep the unit for habitation between tenants and handle all of the paperwork for rent and utilities (depending).
Maintaining housing is very expensive, and many people cannot afford to just drop $25,000 to redo a kitchen or reroof a building when it is required.
So landlords are basically the middle manager between your living at the property, and all of the maintenance and financial details. You pay rent to them for that service.
My landlord doesn’t do that, they have a property manager that does that stuff. Ive never even seen my landlord. If the landlord does it, then they are not doing landlording, they are being a property manager and landlord, but they don’t necessarily have to, and one doesn’t require being the other.
That’s disingenuous. The property manager very much is NOT paying $30k for a new roof. The landlord is. The property manager just executes the maintenance plan the landlord is paying for.
The real problem here that these kinds of discussions usually miss is the system of laws that force everyone involved to treat housing as an investment. Housing is a necessity that the government should ensure availability of for all. Some countries get it right, like Germany where the laws pushed so much reasonably priced housing that rent isn’t even painful so tons of people don’t bother buying
Paying for a roof isn’t work. It’s not producing anything, transforming anything, or doing labor, and it takes no time. It takes 30 seconds to cut a check. And they’re using money I and other renters have paid them because we can’t afford a house, despite very much wanting to, because of how expensive housing is due to landlords buying up all the properties lol. You can tell it’s not a real job because a lot of landlords have full time other jobs. Or it’s why being a landlord is also a great way to get money for old people who can’t work and maybe haven’t saved for retirement nor have a pension.
I 100% agree that the problem is that housing is an investment. Real estate investors should not be buying homes to make a profit at the expense of available housing. I haven’t heard how the situation is in Germany, but that’s good. I heard Tokyo also does it right, where housing depreciates like a car, because they have so much.
Get him
They do create value. They provide maintenance free housing as well as short term housing (short term as in 1-3 years.) Not everyone wants to stay in the same location for 5+ years. If you move around alot It you want to rent is usually the better option.
Now sure you could argue they are over charging for that service but that doesn’t mean they aren’t providing value.
The only reason why we are having issues is because there is a housing shortage that is raising the price and large companies have taken advantage of this by buying up all the houses at the crazy price and renting them out at crazy rent prices eating up the market for actual people to want to buy a house.
They do create value. They provide maintenance free housing as well as short term housing (short term as in 1-3 years.) Not everyone wants to stay in the same location for 5+ years. If you move around alot It you want to rent is usually the better option.
The ability to rent is useful, but the idea that endlessly profiting off of the same property and doing minor maintenance is creating Value is silly. There’s no Value being created through simply owning something. Maintenance creates Value, yes, but that does not make up anywhere close to the profit of landlording.
Value is created by the use of something. If someone is living in a house then it is providing value.
As long as the something is useful it can provide value endlessly.
What is “Value?” We are talking about different things here under the same term. You are referring to “Use-Value” as Value itself. A Use-Value being created has a Value, it will provide it’s Use-Value until it is consumed fully.
No. It’s not large companies. It’s a sickness inherent in the system and exactly what this is taking about. The only service being provided is leveraging their own credit to get a mortgage from the bank and then paying that mortgage and taxes with rent. They do that because it will decrease supply and increase value. And that’s a parasitic practice done not just by large companies by any means. In my city they even subcontract for maintenance and also pay for that out of the rent. If we’re doing this shit, why exactly aren’t we just letting the renters own their equity for paying the goddamn mortgage. It’s a disgusting system.
They provide maintenance free housing…
Keep in mind this isn’t always the case. Landlords where I used to live are increasingly requiring tenants to pay for some maintenance costs. A past landlord had us pay for anything $300 or less.
“Free” as it isn’t the renters responsibility. If something breaks they call the landlord and say fix it.
Obviously the maintenance cost will be baked into the rent cost, or as an added fee as shown in your example.
We had to fix it or arrange to have it fixed, then the landlord would verify it was fixed to their satisfaction. The landlord was otherwise hands off until it exceeded the cost limit. This was the norm for the area.
Ahh ok, I miss read your comment.
No, you’re fine! I didn’t specify. I lived with it for so long, it didn’t even occur to me to outline the process.
Where in the world is that? I have never heard of renters paying for maintenance.
In fact, every single rental agreement I signed over 25 years said “contact the landlord if there is a problem” which was backed up by state law.
Idaho, the South of the North. I now live in Washington, where that kind of shit doesn’t fly.
This incentivizes the tenant to worsen any problems so the landlord has to pay.
Robbing tenants of potential equity is not a service.
Generalizations that are oversimplified to the point of lacking all nuance are probably untrue because there are bound to be exceptions. Instead, try including ‘many’, ‘most’, or such as an easy remedy.
Specifically, landlords can create value when they handle property management and maintenance (and the related costs) efficiently. It is wrong that greed has made that so rare.
Generalizations that are oversimplified to the point of lacking all nuance are probably untrue because there are bound to be exceptions. Instead, try including ‘many’, ‘most’, or such as an easy remedy.
The act of landlording creates no Value. There isn’t a “most” there, because it creates no Value, period.
Specifically, landlords can create value when they handle property management and maintenance (and the related costs) efficiently. It is wrong that greed has made that so rare.
Maintenance workers create Value, yes. Landlords are not creating value, here, the workers are. Landlords often pay management firms as well, cutting out all personal involvement. The minor, administrative labor does create Value, but that is incredibly small in the scope of the money expropriated from the renters.
Greed didn’t make this happen, Capitalism did. The Mode of Production naturally led to this, it isn’t a case of especially greedy people taking power.
In theory, the value they create is in handling all the home maintenance. Of course, many of them don’t do their jobs in practice.
I’d articulate my stance slightly differently, but “handiwork” and even “property management” are real jobs that produce value, but neither of those are “being a landlord”, as evidenced by the fact that the more successful and/or lazy landlords hire managers, etc. and let the “passive income” roll in. The fact that they can outsource even the relatively small amount of labor sometimes associated with their occupation and then still profit endlessly shows that they have a very parasitic social position.
Maintenance creates Value, yes, but landlords aren’t maintenance services, they extract by far the bulk of the profits off of owning the home itself and renting it.
none of them maintain their properties
If they don’t create value then they wouldn’t exist in a capitalist market. Their value is that they take the liability of homeownership.
That’s not Value. “Risk” and “liability” aren’t Value. Nothing is being produced here. There is risk, and there is liability, but that in and of itself is not Value. Additionally, the “risk” in being a landlord is miniscule, even if we take the false pretense of risk creating value, the difference between the minor risk and massive, endless profits from the same property forever is nonsense, the landlord continues to profit over and above their initial investment.
What do you think Value is?
I’m not sure how you define value, but I’m using it to mean “the price or amount that someone is willing to pay in the market” this could be for a tangle thing, like the house itself, or a service, like renting it.
My point is that landlords successfully find willing persons to rent their house for some amount of money. Therefore there is by definition value because it’s happening, whether this is ethically OK or being rented for a fair amount is a separate argument.
When I was a university student I didn’t have enough capital to buy an apartment, but I found value in being able to rent one.
I’m not sure how you define value, but I’m using it to mean “the price or amount that someone is willing to pay in the market” this could be for a tangle thing, like the house itself, or a service, like renting it.
That’s close to the truth, but not quite. Supply and Demand distort the price around a central Value.
My point is that landlords successfully find willing persons to rent their house for some amount of money. Therefore there is by definition value because it’s happening, whether this is ethically OK or being rented for a fair amount is a separate argument.
Not really, the fact that something is purchased doesn’t mean the “risk” or “liability” created the Value behind it.
When I was a university student I didn’t have enough capital to buy an apartment, but I found value in being able to rent one.
You found it useful, ie renting allowed you to fulfill the Use-Value you needed, shelter. You appear to be using Subjective Value “Theory,” ie the idea that Value is a hallucination different from person to person, which is of course wrong.
You found it useful, ie renting allowed you to fulfill the Use-Value you needed, shelter. You appear to be using Subjective Value “Theory,” ie the idea that Value is a hallucination different from person to person, which is of course wrong
I’m not using value in this way, I literally googled “ value in a market economy” because this is what I meant by value and I cut and pasted the common definition of this usage. There is no hallucination or subjectivity, I’m using value to objectively mean what people are actively paying for. If something exists in the market, and it is being exchanged for something in return, it has “value” by this definition.
You are indeed using SVT, where Value simply means a good is useful. We aren’t talking about the same thing.
I think we have different definitions of value and I will not pretend to be an economic theorist, this is out of my depth. My argument comes from a very practical perspective of supply and demand. There is obviously demand for renting property otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
I do think that capitalism at large creates an economic barrier and if one is below the barrier it is difficult to build capital and if you’re above the barrier it is easy. Picking on just land-lording is only picking at one instance of some larger systemic issues that capitalism brings with it. This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
This is an impossible dream. Capitalism demands that the majority of people are perpetually in an underclass (with some shuffling of who specifically is in it). You can’t have an entire population of small business owners, most people need to be wage-laborers or some equivalent.
I think we have different definitions of value and I will not pretend to be an economic theorist, this is out of my depth. My argument comes from a very practical perspective of supply and demand. There is obviously demand for renting property otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
Supply and Demand are only part of the factor, they orbit around Value. What determines the price of a commodity when Supply and Demand cover each other? The answer is Value.
I do think that capitalism at large creates an economic barrier and if one is below the barrier it is difficult to build capital and if you’re above the barrier it is easy. Picking on just land-lording is only picking at one instance of some larger systemic issues that capitalism brings with it. This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
I pick on all of Capitalism, I’m a Communist. Landlording just happens to be the topic at hand. At that matter, regulations and “fairness” will never fix Capitalism, just make its worst aspects more bearable until it collapses under itself.
Capitalism optimizes for exchange value not use value, also landlordism is a fuedal holdover that hurts capitalism, I would suggest reading the chapters in capital volume 3 on land rent
I agree I think they should probably be taxed accordingly. My comment was more just a face value judgement that they do exist and they are of value because people do rent houses.
I’m also not really sure what a viable alternative is in a free market.
I’m also not really sure what a viable alternative is in a free market.
How is a 30 minute video about the Soviet economy a valid answer to alternatives to landlordism in a capitalist market? At least give me a timestamp where they speak to this point.
The viable alternative is to get rid of the "free"market
Nor does investing in silver, or day trading, or charging interest, or option calls. yet this is how capitalism works. We do not live in a society where value is limited to tangible goods produced.
We’re using Value a bit diffetently here, Value isn’t necessarily equal to price.
Actually we’re using it quite the same as I wasn’t referring to price either.
Additionally the meme is disingenuous. Meant to appeal to emotion. What Elmo and Zoe are conveniently ignoring is that the party who is being provided with housing is the tenant.
I mean, this is how businesses work in general. If you don’t buy their products/services, then they wouldn’t be able to continue providing them.
Of course people can simply refuse to buy housing and end up on the street, which isn’t dangerous or criminalized or anything/s
Stop paying rent to see who loses their home. It’s an ugly system.
Who forecloses on the tenant? The landlord
Who forecloses on the landlord? The bank
Who actually performs the eviction? The sheriff’s office
Who therefore truly controls the property?
Is it Elmo?
Yes.
Corporate landlords who pick up the property at collapsed values and maximize rent to suppress the ability for these folks to buy property again?
deleted by creator
ALAB.
No they aren’t all bad. I’ve had good ones. They were there for us at the drop of a hat to fix things, they didn’t over charge. We paid rent on time and they gave us good references for the next places we would move to. My friend currently rents a 1 bedroom apartment for 800$ in a six unit building. They asked the landlord why they don’t charge more when they could easily ask 1500$ plus. He said he knows he could but he also is aware that’s not in the budget for a lot of Canadians right now. So he only asks for what he needs to cover his own costs. Would you say that landlord is bad? My friend can’t afford the upkeep of unexpected home maintenance and utilities on her current budget.
Feel free to go buy your own house then buddy
Get fucked friend
I do, in my many houses
We prefer the term housing provider.
I think the trade is, you take on the purchase of the house, and the landlord takes on all the downside risk.
I think the trade is, you buy the landlord a house, the landlord gets a house, and the landlord gets the capital gain on the house.
No, the taxpayers take on the risk because the landlord uses an LLC.
GPU/ticket scalpers take on a risk too. But we don’t give a shit about them getting fucked by the risk, neither should we give a shit about landlords getting fucked. They’re no different than scalpers.
But what’s worse is, usually they never take on risk to begin with. Insurance companies take on the risk of actual damage. Banks take on some of the risk from the mortgage.
And usually, these landlords are operating under LLCs of some variety. So even if things went belly up, the fat cats get golden parachutes and the maintenance people get fucked.
Landlords are a scurge, and need to be ended as a social class.
Yeah, I’m generally ok if somebody is charging a reasonable rent which covers their reasonable mortgage, so long as they’re still taking care of all the other stuff (repairs, city taxes, etc).
What burns me is people who either a) knowingly buy in a hot, excessively priced market with full intent to charge excessive rents while providing absolutely minimal service or support
b) bought 10+ years ago but have pumped up rents to the same as those who bought at mortgages 2-3x the rate, citing “market rates” and often doing sketchy things to raise rents including renovictions etc, while being shitty - often absentee - slumlords
Maybe I’m showing my age, but there did used to be quite a good number of mom & pop type landlords who weren’t shit, and while the commercial ones cost a bit more there was a decent mix.
Now, the commercial ones are actually mostly a safer bet in small cities. They’ll raise rent every year but consistently, and the decent ones are pretty prompt about repairs and not fucking people over deposits etc. There are bad ones but it’s pretty easy to tell which are which. The problem is of course that availability at the good ones is lower and they do cost more.
Good private landlords are increasingly hard to come by, as the best ones generally end up quitting after either getting too old or after a bad tenant experience, while the slumlords have leveraged their existing properties to finance buying more and more, leading to a market full of increasingly overpriced mould-monsters.
Yea I rent my first house out. Mortgage is 900 and they pay 2000. If they bought my house right now it’d cost them 2800 monthly. Plus their rent is cheaper than the local average by a long shot.
So you prefer having a millionaire landlord, noted…
I prefer no landlords at all
Do you mean that housing should be provided by the government? By the tax payers? And what about maintenance? Is that also provided by the taxpayers? So they would pay people to come fix up the house you live in for free? I guess I’m just not quite sure how you think it all works.
But if you need a place to rent… Quid pro quo.
No, they need a place to live, and it just so happens that the landlords have collectively bought up most of the available housing. It’s like saying that a ticket scalper is providing value.
You could literally change my sentence from “they need a place to rent” to “they need a place to live”, same thing. You don’t need a place to rent if you don’t need a place to live :P.
My point is that the landlord is not providing some integral service, but inserting themselves as a middle man in the process to collect money like a ticket scalper.
But could the renter afford the house?
Given how high rent is getting combined with price deflation from the lack of scalping in this hypothetical, they might realistically be able to swing a mortgage, yeah.
…So you’re not living in the house in which you pay rent? You’re paying for the landlord to live there?? Then where do you stay??? What is this logic??? It doesn’t make sense.
Rocko is the landlord
A lot of people on the comments seem to have had landlords who “fixed things”
deleted by creator
I used to rent, and then decided to buy my own home right before it became impossible to do so for most people. I wouldn’t be able to afford to buy a house nowadays. I lucked out.
Renting was better in many ways because Jesus Christ there’s so much shit I have to pay to fix. 5000$ furnace in the middle of -25 weather. AC 3500$ died in summer. roof leak repair 1500$… , rotting deck 5000$ DIY. Foundation repair, crawlspace encapsulation, toilet replacement+flooring (35 year old terlet was leaking for years and had rotted the boards underneath). Fridge broke and had to buy our own to replace it, same thing happened to the stove. Back when I rented I would call the landlord and they’d replace it at no cost to me. It’s a good thing we have credit to put this shit on, because without it we would be fucked. We used a mini fridge for 6 months because we had to save for a full size fridge when ours broke.
House maintenance is a killer. I can’t just call my landlord up and tell them it needs to be done. Or if I had a shitty landlord who doesn’t want to fix shit, like I’ve had in the past, I can’t NOT care, move out eventually and it’s not my issue once I’m gone. It’ll come back to bite you when it’s a house you have invested in and own. Owning houses is expensive. Renting has a lot of perks and one of them is you aren’t required to keep up the house. All that falls on the person you are renting from.
Now the frigging cost that some landlords are charging is criminal and a whole other story.
