Yes, that is correct. After all, parasites never think they are parasites.

how is maintaining a property not adding anything of material value.

for a landlord to meet that requirement they'd have to have a property where they own it, pay taxes on it, but replace nothing and maintain nothing. landlords generally mow lawns, replace appliances, fix carpets/windows/paint in changeovers of tenants, etc. these are all services i as a home owner have to do myself. now obviously they get a profit for this service, but that's essentially their hourly rate for being a landlord who is on call 24-7 for issues. time is a material value, as are many of the services they provide.

Monetary compensation and profiteering are very different things.

Finding roommates to help with rent happens pretty often with younger adults to cut costs. Of course, the legit way is to apply and co-sign together.

This post was edited by obisent on Jan 14 2020 03:22pm

At ridiculous cost/profit yes.

Just a matter of where you draw the line, what do you see as the difference between the two

I have no problems with landlords existing and even profiting from owning and renting houses. But there definitely are some people here who don't adhere to law/building code and will bully you out of your room/house if you protest. Luckily I haven't had that problem, but I have heard of it happening and the police not really doing anything. Pressing charges would be too expensive.

So in essence, the problem is not with the concept of rent and landlords, but rather with enforcement of current law.

Allowing people to buy up everything and rent it at high profit creates unrealistic prices that the lower and lower middle classes can't afford to buy in. We have created entire classes of people who are forced to work themselves to the bone just to pay rent / survive. While a handful of people collect wealth and contribute nothing.

I see you cited a homesless statistic as if it means anything, people shouldn't be forced into renting because wealthy people have inflated the cost of property so lower middle class people can't even begin to think about buying. It's just plain wrong.

Nobidy should be able to own multiple single family detached homes as income. Commercial/industrial is a different avenue.

At the very least we should be regulating the prices/ownership of lower end residential properties.

i cited a stat because you said "majority". that a word that means "most by percent". you used it, not me. and when you said it you were wrong.

but again, you're talking about a regional issue. for the majority, and yes i do mean most by percent, of people in america or canada finding and renting a property to live in at a reasonable % of your earnings isn't an issue.

i suppose we could drastically relax requirements to get a loan for a home so that more of the lower class could get home loans. i think i remember us trying that before, unsure how it ended up.

Who are you to decide what private citizens should be doing with their assets? If i want to buy a house and there's a seller eager to sell the house why do you feel entitled to interfere with that transaction?