• Lifekraft@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    The only reason you own a second house is for profit. A profit you are doing directly from an other individual. You can twist that how you want, it’s the reality. You are doing it respectfully and are providing a service. But an artificial one.

    • onion@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      What if it’s run at cost? (And the property value were to stay level)

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

        You’re still extracting wealth from the tenant, and the tenant is only losing money. You’re still preventing the tenant from building their wealth through property ownership.

        The ethical thing to do in this situation would be to sell the house to the tenant at a price proportional to the rent, minus what they’ve already paid in rent to this point.

        • onion@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Sorry I genuinly don’t follow. If I were to rent out at cost, that means if the tenant were the owner, they’d have to pay the same cost as well. So they’re losing the same amount of money either way.

          And how would they be building wealth through property, if the property value doesn’t rise? They would buy the flat for say 50k$, and then own 50k$ worth of property

          minus what they’ve already paid in rent to this point

          I think you’re assuming that I would be paying off a loan with their rent? By renting at cost I meant their rent covers maintanance/upkeep