• dogsoahC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    Okay, but why do we need the landlord then? We’d just need a custodian.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean… yeah, pretty much. I don’t want to deal with maintenance or the legal stuff, so I’d be willing to pay someone to deal with all of that. Not the outrageous rates that rent usually goes for, typically.

    • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because you can’t afford to buy a property? So you need someone else to do it for you and then pay them a service fee for living in their property.

      There’s a lot of smaller victories to win before we can have the big victory of outlawing landlords, so we should fight those first imo.

      I am not a landlord. Yet.

      When i do buy a 2nd property I do intend to rent it out at a reasonable price - and I have no guilt over doing so because all of our country’s private property is being bought up by foreign “investors” driving up the cost of ownership and rents while leaving properties unoccupied. It’s disgusting and I’ll fight it directly when I can afford to.

      • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not completely against the concept of renting. But imo the property should be owned either by the inhabitant of it, or the state. And then the state employs a custodian in charge of repairs and administration (you know, the only useful aspects of a landlord), while renting it out for a low price. And in order to keep prices a s low as possible, maintenance is supplemented by a tax.

        The problem with private landlords of one or two extra properties, while they’re often not morally bankrupt, is that they tend to be wholly inept at the custodian part. Plus, if properties are all owned in small numbers rather than organized on the large scale, that’s just very inefficient.

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          That does sound like it would be of benefit but I’m not sure how realistic it is to set up a system like this and it work for everyone - would the government just start buying property off people? Would that crash or balloon the market? How do you ensure that families aren’t priced out of moving home either by higher property prices (from the government buying up everything) or from a catastrophic crash caused by no one wanting to buy property as investments?

          Also how would the government provide attractive housing options across the economic spectrum across the whole of the country? Sounds like a monstrously large government department would need to be formed, which amongst other things would be very inefficient and goes against the objectives of the government. Take for example state health care- there is only one tier of care, and if you want anything better you pay for it privately. If we had the same for housing but didn’t have the private option then in all liklihood the government would be thrown out and the next one would be the one who promises private housing. Because like it or not, the middle class doesn’t want to live like the working class.

          As I said, there a lot of battles to win and I think this anti-landlord stuff is just short sighted because there is no realistic solution that could be implemented today even if a country was willing - which it isn’t. Instead we should focus on fighting the smaller fights that would lead us towards the utopia: rent control, taxation, foreign “investors”, empty dwellings, single-family properties etc…all of these things could be vastly improved today for the benefit of everyone except those leaching on society.

          • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            You could still have different prices, albeit lower ones. Renting then becomes part of a resources allocation game. If you want a bigger/more luxurious home, you pay more and have less for other things. If a fancy house isn’t so important to you, you can get a cheaper one and have more money left for vacations, fine dining, cinema, etc.

            As for the efficiency, that government department could take lessons from big property owners and organize like them, only with state subsidies and without profit goals. That way, the middle class, by virtue of having more money, could still afford better housing. Also, I don’t want the middle class to live like the working class, I want the working class to live like the middle class. Also also, there’s no “middle class”, only parts of the working class that got lucky. But they’re fundamentally still beholden to their employers’ whims.

            Incremental change withing the current system is good and important, but we nonetheless have to discuss the big break that has to occur at some point, and what comes after. Incremental change can only take us so far.