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?

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        If you’re not charging them above what is required to cover their share of the mortgage, then that’s not immoral at all.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          But you would be the one getting ownership from the mortgage, so I’d think charging less than the share of the mortgage would be fair. But that ratio depends on your and their particular time value of money, which is hard to pin down. And once you paid off the house, the rent should go to zero?

          • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 days ago

            I agree, that sounds fair.

            I suppose after the house is paid off, they could switch to pay the equivalent percentage they were paying for the mortgage, toward property taxes and utilities instead.

      • noscere@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        My two cents—which is worthless (thanks inflation!):

        Not unless you are taking advantage of them. It really is going to depend on the specific situation. But if you are renting to housemates you’re not really the landlord class most people are talking about.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          But what is taking advantage of them? If someone owns a house outright, isn’t charging any rent charging more than you need to? At that point, they’re not contributing anything. I agree that’s not what most people are talking about, but I don’t see how it’s categorically different.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        I don’t think rentals should exist. You could literally put a house anywhere a couple hundred years ago, and all you needed to do was build it. Now we have artificially stunted the supply of housing to make good little worker bees our of everyone. The threat of homelessness and starvation is a fantastic motivator to not rock the boat in society.

        • woop_woop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          Well, not quite. You’d have to have rights to the land to do that. Else someone could ride up and just take it from you.

        • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          You could literally put a house anywhere a couple hundred years ago, and all you needed to do was build it.

          I think you have to go back way more than a few hundred years for that.

          In the US there were programs that kinda sounded like that but it was just the US government trying to get working class white people to displace native people.

          In Europe wasn’t everything owned by nobles snd royals who demanded a cut of your labor? Could people just build a random house anywhere in ancient Rome or Greece?