Fucking leeches
Fucking leeches
You're viewing a single thread.
358 comments
-
I used to have my own place before my wife and I got married, and she had her own house too. When I moved in with her I decided to rent out my place to a friend, otherwise I'd have to still pay like $650 a month for my mortgage. I set my friends rent at $900 a month for him and a friend, with cats. I paid my mortgage and had some extra to save up in case a repair was needed. Average rent for an apartment (not a house) was 1200-1500 in the same area. My renters ended up taking better care of the house than I ever did. It was beautiful when they lived there. I ended up making about 5k to 10k extra bucks over the course of a few years and my mortgage was paid for me. Eventually they had to move out due to some issues between the two at which point I sold the house and made over six figures(net profit, not gross), off a house that cost less than $80,000 when I bought it.
See what I did there? I charged a reasonable rent and still made a totally stupid amount of money off of just one property. I wasn't a goddamn parasite who tried to bleed my tenants for everything they were worth.
People like these total shitbags. They're the reason why America's youth have no future
-
Using my “friends” to pay off a personal debt while making $250/mo in profit off them. See, it’s possible to be a good landlord, everyone!
Did you share any of what you made from the sale with your “friends” who helped you pay for it and kept it in good condition for you?
-
It seems like it was a situation where everyone felt like they got a good deal and nobody felt taken advantage of. He gave them a better deal than they were going to find anywhere else.
To me, it doesn't sound like he was exploiting his friends.
-
Did those friends run the risk of having to pay for a new roof or anything else that can go wrong with a house? Tell me you've never owned a house without telling me you've never owned a house
-
Don't try to talk sense into the senseless.
-
Did the landlord have to risk losing his own home when the person who owns it decides they are done being a decent human and kicks them out for a higher paying tenant, or sells the property to another landlord who will do the same? Do they have to beg someone to come fix their shit in a timely manner or do they just call a repair man who doesn't charge them $250/mo for the privilege of paying off someone else's mortgage so they can call the repair man for you?
-
I rent two apartments in a state where all of that is not possible. Evictions take months and if repairs are not made quickly the tenant is legally entitled to withhold rent. But while on the topic I am most certainly on the hook for inflationary swings in:
- any and all repairs
- gas and electric
- insurance
- property taxes
- landscaping and snow removal
There is no free lunch, no one side is correct. Stop pretending this topic is black and white. There are some good landlords, many bad. Same goes for tenants.
-
There is no free lunch, no one side is correct
Except the only reason they do any of the shit you just mentioned is because of government regulation. And it varies wildly by state.
There is a reason that those laws exist. Because they need to exist.
So no, this is not a "both sides" thing.
That's also completely ignoring the completely off-balanced power mechanic that exists between landlord and tenant, equating them as you did is super disingenuous.
-
One reason it's obvious you don't have experience with home ownership is that you're acting like the repair man is free and not easily an aggregate of 250/month when expensive repairs are needed. That is $3000 my dude, which is easily a single plumbing problem that the landlord, not the tenant, has to pay for out of pocket.
-
It's clear you've never had to rent a property from a shitty landlord before or you'd know they would just evict you, condemn the property and sell the land to recoup their "investment" rather than pay $3000 of their hard earned money fixing the damage some ungrateful shit did to THEIR property. You keep coming up with convoluted hypotheticals that assume the landlord will always act in the best faith to justify a practice that fundamentally should not exist. One or two "good" landlords don't redeem all of them.
-
The people here arguing against this live in states that have literally legislated protections for tenants against predatory landlords. The only reason they even think they have an argument, is because people fought very hard in their state, for minimal tenant protections.
Most of the same people would be doing every single one of those predatory things if they were legally allowed to.
-
The funny thing is they’re arguing with someone who has been illegally evicted several times. What exactly do they expect poor people to do about it, hire a lawyer and sue? For the chance of what, getting back into a rental run by a now (more) hostile landlord? Get monetary damages? How much? Enough to buy a house? No? Then the problem just repeats.
-
And how do they even pay the lawyer?
-
-
-
-
He received over a million dollars for the house in the end, plus the 5-10K in profit.
-
That is $3000 my dude, which is easily a single plumbing problem
If you mean busted water and all the repairs, sure, but that's on the landlord for not ever checking on their property (unless the tenant did something very stupid, which is possible)
I own my home and just had some plumbing work done in California (king of expensive) and 3k is about 10x what it cost me for a couple hours of plumber work
-
-
-
-
-
-
You still take someone elses money, just less of it.
-
See, when the Landlord charges reasonable rates, and actually provides services in exchange for that rent (helping update appliances to newer, having paperwork on hand for any code/inspections needed for property changes (that the landlord would ultimately benefit from,) and in general treating it as a matter of 'I have obligations' instead of 'I will do nothing but I will absolutely blame the tennants for the inevetable crumbling of the property.'
I dislike the concept at base level, but that is a someone who is trying to not be a scumbag.
-
The renting part isn't even that bad, the owning part and selling for profit is the problem.
-
The renting part isn’t even that bad, the owning part and selling for profit is the problem.
What are you talking about? I buy a house for $200k in 2012, real estate market goes crazy and now my house is worth $500, selling it for market value iis… wrong?
-
Morally wrong, yes. But sadly normal...
-
-
-
-
Can we not shit all over normal people for doing normal stuff? This dude doesn't run Blackrock, he had a single rental property.
-
Hundred years ago it was normal to beat women of they were out of line. Millenia ago it was normal to own slaves. It's also "normal" for the US Healthcare to screw over people who need Healthcare. Just because something is "normal" doesn't mean it's somehow right. Slavery was normal but then different societies over time understood that slavery is not right and it stopped being normal. Beating women used to be normal but over time we learned that's also not right and it stopped being normal. I don't know about you but I don't think ripping people off is right. However ripping people off has been normalized for capital owners (including land lords).
Nobody should be wishing for his demise (compared to Blackrock and its kin, who I do think should cease to exist), but at the same time he shouldn't be padded on the back for not ripping off his friend as much as he could've. What he did shouldn't be normal.
-
He didn't rip off his friend at all. He took just enough to pay the mortgage and save something up in case of repairs. That isn't ripping him off. That's doing him a favor since he charged him so little.
-
He could've given the rest money back to his friend after all the repairs were done. He chose to keep that money.
-
Yea, and if he had just sold the property in the first place there wouldn’t have been a house to rent at all.
-
So given the equity to his friends?
-
No. Here's what he could've done to not be a leech.
- sell the property
He no longer uses it so selling it to someone who would use it would be the best option. But maybe he's sentimental about the place or has some other reason to keep it. Then it's better if he "rents" it out.
- Get tenants but have them only pay for the utilities they use,no rent is paid.
He chose to keep the house, the mortgage on it is his responsibility not the tenants. Even if he just asked the tenants to cover the mortgage that is already leeching because you're not using your money to pay it off, you're using someone else's. Once the mortgage is paid off he has a property he didn't pay for while the people who paid got nothing. But let's say he can't afford to pay the mortgage but he still wants to keep the house?
- have the tenants pay thy mortgage as well, but nothing more.
Again, it's his property whatever patch work it requires it's his to cover. He's already offloaded his mortgage to the tenants, why demand even more from them? But let's say the tenants are scum of the earth and every day they tear the property apart, having the also pay to cover the repairs would reign them in.
- give back the money he took for repairs but he didn't use for repairs.
He's offloaded the mortgage on the tenants. He's offloaded the maintenance cost to the tenants. The least he could do is give back the maintenance money he didn't use. But he doesn't even do that.
And yet, according to you, we're supposed to think of it as him doing the tenants a favor because he's not ripping them off more? Do you think a wife beater not beating his wife every chance he gets is doing the wife a favor? Do you think the slave owner not whipping their slaves is doing them a favor? Absolutely asinine.
-
Yeah but didn't he say he charged way less than the average rent price? Seems pretty harmless to me
-
Taking $900 a month from your friend just so the friend could have a roof over their head sounds harmless? And your defense of that action is "at least he's not taking $1400-$1500"?
How about you Venmo me $900 every month and in return if someone comes asking to Venmo them $1500 you can tell them you already got a better deal? Does that sound fair or do I need to own property to make it seem fair?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dude, they explained perfectly well how they ended up with two houses. 2 people had houses, they got married and only needed one. They weren’t preying on people, it just happened to them.
-
-
If they sold it they’d be scumbag real estate agents, since we’re apparently taking everything to extremes.
-
-
Well apparently renting one out is to you, I’m just following your logic.
-
Yes, my extreme position of - I don't believe people and corporations should own multiple properties while homelessness exists. I'm a true radical.
-
-
-
-
Yeah but what if they ebded up separating with their partner? It just made sense to keep the property. Renting it out just covered the cost and made sure it was not empty.
-
-
Yeah I really did type that out you bastard. It's their fucking property. They could have left it empty. Having a property is just housing safety.
-
-
-
-
That doesn't change the fact they aren't normal people. Most people would love the hope of ever owning one house in America, as a dual income household, much less two single people who are rich enough to have their own homes.
-
Yeah fuck that guy for being born early enough to be able to buy an $80k house via mortgage
-
So what, they should just give their house away for free?
-
-
They rented it out to their friends for like half of what a similar place would cost. Then they sold it after their friend moved out. Not seeing how that's so morally reprehensible. You honestly just seem like someone who is jealous of someone else and so are shitting on them to feel better. And even if they did sell, if everyone is someone they can't afford a house, seems more likely a landlord would buy it anyway.
-
So what is the proper method in your mind?
-
You can start by stopping the privatization of shelter. We can better fund and staff HUD for assistance to those who need shelter. This country is plenty wealthy enough to end homelessness, but it actively chooses not to. Same with food assistance. It's a choice.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
There's a line to draw between exploiting tenants, and compensation for providing dwelling.
You might even argue the OP creates this ambiguity based on interpretation of the wording, or poor communication.
For a productive conversation, let's be crystal clear where that line is drawn.
-
This is something I think gets left out, but understandably so when there are so many issues with landlords.
But, as a property owner, you've got all the liability and are responsible for repairs and ensuring that the property is livable and usable. I think there's a level of compensation you can be earning from your time, but I think that having extremely high rent PLUS the ROI of your property increasing in value over time is double dipping. When you consider that your money is invested in property and you're getting value that way, it IS leeching IMO if someone else is doing all the upkeep and paying a premium for that.
Looking at the OP that way shows that those people are just exploiting others. But I do think there is such a thing as ethical landlording. But I think generally we're not there.
-
If you start treating everyone who’s making a profit by owning a property and renting it out, as a piece of shit, soon you’ll have everyone avoiding renting property altogether, and simply selling, and investing their capital in something that returns a profit. You know the stock market, Bitcoin. The bottom line is a rental property is just a business like anything else
-
-
-
Not everyone is in a situation where they can or even want to own a house. Renting is much safer in terms of sudden emergencies. Water heater blows out in a house? Fuck you, 3k to replace at least. In an apartment? That's a landlord problem.
-
So?
-
-
Someone who needs a place to live in and doesn't have the money or doesn't want to buy their own place. IMO, it is a fair trade as long as the landlord isn't a cunt. The reasons to why they don't have enough to buy their own place have nothing to do with a single landlord, some people don't want to take roots in a single place. If you wanna go to war with someone, go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people.
-
The incentive structure for landlords creates these conditions, it's not some individual failing of their moral character. Individual tyrants aren't better than corporate tyrants.
-
go to war with companies, ban companies on owning and renting places, not people with that I can agree. But taking money is still taking money.
-
By that thought everyone should be doing everything for free.
-
Based
-
Oh, a utopia. Where everyone works for free.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I live in the UK and many neighbours of mine are "professional landlords" and it is so annoying seeing them so relaxed and doing nothing while I am stressed and anxious at my job.
-
Your "friend" still paid a substantial portion of your mortgage and gained nothing from it beyond being out of the rain. You used him and paint it as mutually beneficial.
-
How is a stable comfortable place to live 'nothing'? If being out of the rain was all it took we'd all live in tents and this conversation would not occur. Owning a house and keeping it repaired/functional is hard and expensive. You don't do your side favors by acting like our boy kept his friend in a locked closet when we all know that isn't true.
-
I'm not going to argue with you. Shelter is not a commodity.
-
Of course it is. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be able to sell it, take the money and invest in something else.
-
There are too many people like you.
-
I’m trying to help you understand. You want to insult me, and make moral arguments outside the scope of basic economics.
-
-
-
-
Why do you get extra properties to rent out to others while he has to pay the rent?
The only reason why he doesn't have enough is because people like you have too much.
We're coming for you.
-
The only reason why he doesn’t have enough is because people like you have too much.
This should be satire.
-
-
-
-
You made a profit from people who thought they were your friends. Classy.
-
Yes, it's called mutually beneficial. They saved hundreds of dollars every month since I was charging them way under market for rent. They were actually able to save up a substantial amount. I mean they were planning on having to pay at least 1200 a month for a shitty place, instead they got an actual fucking house for 900.
When his mom was dying of cancer, he had room for her to stay with them after chemo sessions. Since the house was in a great location near the hospital
-
-
TBH I think you're even overstating how lucrative it is for the average person. Most houses don't double in value, most areas don't rent for $1500 USD, most tenants don't maintain properties well.
-
That's nice, but you shouldn't have an extra property to rent out to others when there's not enough to go around.
-
-
Are hotels parasites too? When you lease a car, are the dealers parasites? How about short term rentals for traveling nurses. Are those parasites too?
If I own a house and have roommates, am I a parasite too?
Grow up man. Renting a home has advantages that people like me pay for.
The place I'm renting is in an amazing area that I would never be able to afford. My son goes to school in a nicer, safer area.
I can move out whenever I want to without worrying about selling my place.
When something breaks, 1 phone call and my issue is fixed.
I pay less than a mortgage and the money I save, I get to diversity my retirement/investment. Instead of dumping my entire asset in a home.
-
Are those parasites too?
Yes?
retirement/investment
Probably also parasitic
-
wtf. You people are nuts.
-
-
-
-
-
358 comments