No Stupid Questions

I actually have a related question that I'm curious to hear takes on. I'm a leftist, and I own a 1-bed apartment where two good friends of mine rent the apartment right next door. Their landlord is planning to sell next year, and they don't have the ability to buy it. So depending on who does buy the place, my friends could be out of a home. My sister and I could combine finances to buy their unit (with a mortgage), and ensure that my friends could stay where they are. This would be a bit of a financial burden but doable, and we would need to charge rent to pay back the mortgage.

Would this be a net good or a net evil? I feel very conflicted about potentially being a landlord (especially for friends) but also don't want them to need to move.

We mean all of them. Being a landlord is racketeering other people's hard earned money for the human right of being housed, they're all parasites that grabbed the housing market to a point nobody else can buy anything to actually live in.

Your Aunt should be paying enough taxes that owning a second property should be more or less unfeasible.

A fair system would have her seeking other retirement vehicles.

Are they renting out for as cheap as they can afford? Modest profit aside is fair.

If they're like "oh wow. I can raise from 1800$/mo to 2500$/mo bc everyone else is". That's where it's concerning.

Personally, if I was in their shoes, I would interview and find a struggling family and subsidize their rent from the other tenants for two of the 5 houses for as long as I could afford to.

(I own nothing right now, it's looking bleak)

Meta commentary: note that "LEFTISTS" are not this bloc that is perfectly aligned. You need to ask the individuals whether they hate small scale as well as large scale landlords.

There is no universal "LEFTIST" belief. People exist at every point along the spectrum. Stop thinking in binary terms and you can have far more productive discussions with people.

The problem in Ireland is when big American moguls go and buy up properties in Dublin to rent out en masse, effectively just sucking money out of the country. We always need people to lend out property on rent free cheaper than a mortgage. Landlords are vital for those who cannot afford a mortgage. But these landlords are the smaller ones - like your aunt.

Ideally as well economically, the tenants should be people who are starting off or not intending to live permanently - like holidaymakers or students

My dad was a 'landlord' renting out the other three rooms of the house to people. He kept the rent a few hundred bwlow the market because all the rent money was icing on his cake, and he knew housing was hard to come by. Most renters liked him, but he was a poor judge of character and would often give the room to the first person that showed up, leading to drama, but mostly a good experience.

So as always, it depends and there is a spectrum. The scum of the scum are slum lords, i.e. landlords who buy property, do not fix up or maintain it, fill it with any old tenant that is desperate enough to take it, will evict someone at the drop of a hat, and constantly charge exorbitant amounts on property the own outright because the property value went up this year. It doesn't necessarily have to be that bad, but people that buy property simply as an "investment", i.e. get passive income from people with less money than them to buy property, are leeching off the less fortunate. There are certainly scales of badness to that, but that idea is simply immoral.

But there are other situations where one may be a "landlord" and it's not really a moral problem. For example, a cousin of mine had to work overseas for a bit over a year and was put up in a hotel during that time. He didn't want to sell his home, as he would be returning to it later, but also didn't want it to sit empty. He ended up signing a year long lease over to a couple students, charged them little more than the mortgage (enough to cover the mortgage, taxes and any minor repairs that may be needed after they left) and returned home to a house that was still in decent shape, hadn't had any break ins, infestations, or damage from the elements, and the students got some inexpensive housing for the year. No one was taken advantage of and he wasn't just milking poor people for profit. Everyone won. That is clearly different.

There is no exception to stealing housing from other people.

I do believe a lot of landlords don't care and will make decisions based on what makes them more money versus the well-being of the people living in their property. But I don't agree that landlords as a concept are bad, and that they all should sell their extra properties to reduce the crazy prices we're having.

There are plenty of reasons someone would prefer to rent than to buy, and if there are no landlords or rental houses what happens to those cases? I personally have attended university not at my home city, and I rented an apartment with other students. It makes no sense to buy in that situation. People who intend to live somewhere temporarily would mostly prefer to rent, what would happen then?

There is a problem with regulation, big companies owning whole apartment buildings, and generally small greedy landlords what will make their tenants life hell. But cutting out the whole concept is trading one issue with another.

There are lots of kinds of “leftisms” with lots of different attitudes toward landlords—but to take Georgism as a concrete example that exclusively focuses on land ownership:

Georgists would say that the portion of the rent equal to the market rent of the unimproved lot—including the value generated by the presence of the surrounding community and infrastructure—should go back to the community rather than the landlord, but the portion of the rent contributed solely by the presence of buildings and other improvements should go to the owner of the improvements.

It would vary depending on who's saying it.

Sorry, parasite.

Only way i think it’s acceptable is one house per person, or renting out property you live at.

If your aunts partner has a place, unused, then sure rent it.

If your aunts property has another home on it then sure rent it.

It's complicated, for me personally having one or two extra properties you're providing a service, not everyone wants to buy a house at every moment, e.g. I recently moved to another city and wanted to live in a neighborhood for a while before buying something. The more you have, the more part of the problem you become, because when someone wants to buy somewhere they now can't because people own it for renting. Also, again personally, if the value of rent is higher than the value of the mortgage, then you're ripping people off, because you're essentially buying the house with their money while they can't buy a place of their own. As an example, I want to buy a place of my own, but every place here is so expensive because people buy them to rent, because the rent is higher than the mortgage so if you have the initial money buying a house is essentially free money, however rent is so high that getting the initial money is really hard and people are stuck with paying more to own nothing.

Both. A better statement would be "Landlords and real estate investors" are parasites. If you can afford a home you don't live in them you are driving up prices on homes that others could live in, fuck you.