You can find anecdotal cases on both sides. There absolutely tenets that no doubt abuse rental properties as well. Although it was an investment from a landlord perspective and this being a risk, it is still shitty. Furthermore the point is that in 2020 tenets, shitty or not, were essentially given free housing for months. When the government mandates these tenets are not financially responsible for rent simultaneously while not reimbursing landlords, something has to give. In this case a significant portion of landlords foreclosed on properties which ultimately hurts both renters and landlords

That's a pretty nonsensical take.


1. Landlord maintains the property.
If the roof starts leaking the landlord has to come up with 10+ grand for the roof. The renter has no obligation for maintenance.

2. Landlord pays the mortgage.
He's responsible for the mortgage regardless if he got rent money or not. The bank goes after him if he doesn't pay the mortgage, there's literally no risk to the renter.

3. What you're saying makes zero sense.
Whether it's a landlord or a homeowner living in that house is irrelevant. Both get some value and in the case of the landlord, he's providing value for a renter. If there was no value then the renter wouldn't voluntarily exchange their money for the product.

Your argument could be applied to any investment decision. People investing in the stock market are leeches because they don't contribute value and take dividends from companies., you don't need to do any actual management and you're just creating a pressure on companies to pay dividends instead of hiring new staff or paying existing staff more.

Buying a house to rent is a pure investment decision, there wouldn't be landlords if there wasn't demand from people without the sense to save up for a deposit on a house of their own.

It's not even a particularly profitable investment either - I'm sure there have been studies showing it's better to put your money in the stock market than in a house, purely based on returns.

The real issue is these things happen on a commodity that is a necessity. Like, you can leech from financial instruments all you want. Nobody really needs them. When you do it to something that you basically die without, then it's a problem.

The renter has obligation to maintenance through their rent, whether or not maintenance is needed. The cost will be built into the rent.

No matter who owns the property they are responsible for the mortgage. By definition as well, the renter is paying more than the cost to own and maintain the house, else there is no profit. Meaning if the house goes a year without a renter, the future renters will still end up paying for that.

"Both of you get value" is the argument of a slave. The master pays for your house and you work his fields after all! It's a bad argument that can be applied to any number of abuses.

The only value a landlord really offers that I agree with is flexibility. I don't have to do a mortgage every time I move. This can be applied to apartment life though.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 14 2020 01:09pm

god damn I had this and sold.. didn't think it was going to move.
BCDA BIOCARDIA INC COM
$6.87 +4.05 (+143.62%)

yikes

I was in BCRX a few months ago. I got out at +30%, but damn coulda had almost 200%.

I made $300,000 off just the house i am living in off a $450,000 investment in the last 6 years.
I wish my stock did that well.

Invest in the right ones