• lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    They should abolish buy to let mortgages. How is it fair that a renter literally pays for the mortgage by proxy but doesn’t have a stake in the home.

  • Nobsi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    LMAO if you pay 66% of your income on rent then you really need to change something in your life.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Did you know that you can be a landlord too, even if you can’t afford a whole house? There’s such a thing as a REIT (real estate investment trust) where you can buy shares in a company that owns and rents out real estate and sends you your share of the profits while you don’t have to do anything except give up the option to invest that money somewhere else, which is actually really important.

    I don’t expect everyone here to be able to invest in the stock market; my point is that there are easy ways for even middle-class people to obtain income from rent and yet most of them aren’t doing that because other types of investments are usually better for them. Being a landlord is not some unique source of money for nothing; it’s one of many ways to invest your money in a productive asset and usually not the best one.

    • Lets unwrap this.

      First of all you claim that the investment in these funds is not the best option, implying that this reflects on being alandlord directly. Instead you need to consider the costs of running the fund, which is even higher than for actively managed stock funds as you get both active management and physicalassets that are more complex to manage than virtual assets like stocks.

      Then you claim that it is not a source of money from nothing. But at the core it is. Why is that? Because space is limited and cannot grow. Companies can grow, ressources can be extracted, work can be put towards something. But the fundamental source of income of a landlord is his control of a limited space ressource. If you claim “but there is a house on that space” then you should compare the rental and also buying prices of the same quality houses depending on location. It is an old wisdomof proerty companies. The first three criteria are location, location and location.

      Finally you argue that it is usually not the best asset to invest in. This may be true for many people, but it is irrelevant to the fact that landlords extract money from scarcity and there is no productivity from there part that justifies this extraction, nor does it benefit the overall economy.

  • danikpapas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Then don’t rent it an move to a place you can afford to buy the house