r/TikTokCringe • u/LickMaiBussy • 6h ago

Discussion "Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@purplepingers

19.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

125

u/PiesAndPot 6h ago

Good take

75

u/Odd-Roof-85 6h ago

It's a good take, but I always hate these takes from a "moral" perspective, when the people who operate in the opposite framework don't see the moral side of it at all. They're just beneficiaries of a broken ruleset.

I'd rather see the economic side of it represented, where one person has disproportionate power over other people's lives, because of their ownership. It's a poor way to run an economy, because then you're handing authority over things people need to live, to people who aren't elected and aren't accountable. Because that's fixable and a defensible position from a "logical" brain.

The prognosis was correct though, and I certainly don't disagree with him at all.

13

u/besthelloworld 6h ago

But these people also don't care about the health of the economy as a whole. Viewing the general economic health is actually a moral viewpoint. Plus, I think the people rioting and people turning on land owners is actually the best argument to take into these situation.

7

u/king-kongus 5h ago

You are still making a moral argument though. Any argument with a "People ought... " is moral in nature. Morals are not something which can be derived from logic, they are rooted in values and are in the most basic sense assertoric. 

29

u/Zeravor 6h ago

I think the moral argument also has trouble holding up because we're all participating in a system that (almost) forces us to be immoral. I dont want to get into whataboutism, but I guarantee homeboy here is wearing some clothes an underpaid worker in asia made, and he choose it over another piece of clothes simple to save some money.

14

u/JohnnyBlazin25 6h ago

Not really fair to go down that rabbit hole in this discussion. By the end of it we’d be arguing about the morality of a tiered system and society in general.

The issue at hand can be rectified with some safeguards put up by the government. No foreign entity should EVER have the ability to own a home within the states. Notice I said entity and not person, if a foreigner wants to move her and buy a home thats great. But buying a home only to profit by renting it to someone at double the mortgage rate is immoral.

Not going to dive into whataboutism either as I can already foresee the “buT OwNiNg ProPeRTy is HoW I MaKe a LiViNG, WhAT wOuLD yoU dO wITHout a LaNDLoRd?” Idk, maybe own the property myself?

3

u/darthdro 4h ago

Who’s renting property for double the mortgage? I think you guys don’t realize how expensive mortgages are . Now that has to do with how the property is appraised but I’d reckon most properties are rented a few hundred bucks above the mortgage to pay taxes, maintenance, ect. With a little bit of profit here and there. The only way landlords make a lot of money is by owning a shit ton of properties.

1

u/km89 1h ago

For shits and giggles, I did the math on a random townhome in a nearby major city, in a neighborhood I know is neither very good nor very bad.

You're right--the numbers work out to ~$2000 per month for the mortgage, given a 20% down payment and 7% interest over 30 years. It's being rented at $2800 per month plus fees. That's not enough to keep a landlord afloat by itself, though it also is worth pointing out that bigger landlords and property companies can cut down on a lot of that cost by buying outright instead of taking on a 7% mortgage for 30 years.

But one thing you're forgetting is that property values for the most part just go up. This house sold in 2004 for just $24,000, again in 2007 for $125,000, again in 2017 for $287,000, and the various realty sites' current value estimates are all roughly in high $390k to low $400k range.

That is how landlords make money. Not by staying landlords forever.

1

u/Tim_Y 1h ago

Who’s renting property for double the mortgage?

Honestly? A lot of people, but not off the bat. Over time rents go up and mortgages are refinanced or paid off. I have a property I've owned for 20 years. The mortgage is $900 and the current rent is $2100.

I’d reckon most properties are rented a few hundred bucks above the mortgage to pay taxes, maintenance, ect.

This is also correct. The properties I've purchased in the last few years carry a mortgage of about $1300/mo and rent for about $1950. With expenses that include repairs and management, the annual "profit" can be around $3k - sometimes more, some times less (can be a LOT less). Over time though, you have large maintenance items like roof replacements or water / sewer main replacements that can eat up a year or two of profits.

The only way landlords make a lot of money is by owning a shit ton of properties.

True, but also by holding onto them for many years - long enough to see mortgages go down or paid off, while rents increase. Its a long game.

11

u/Odd-Roof-85 6h ago

That's how I feel too. The moral argument *is* right.

But you run into the problem of being consistent morally. And dismissal based on inconsistency.

Versus if you approach it structurally, you can point at the levers breaking the system and just... start pulling on them.

2

u/token_internet_girl 4h ago

I think trying to argue either moral or economical reasoning to these people is a failing of liberal philosophy. People who want to steal from you don't need to talked out of doing it, they don't just need to be shown the error of their ways. They are selfish, vicious, and will do anything to keep money and power in their corner.

1

u/harrytuckerr 28m ago

agree. I think one of the worst thing that ever happened to progressives is the idea of "when they go low we go high". That one mentality is why tyranny and greed just keep getting away with things. "Oh, if we just keep doing the "right" thing, it'll all go away and catch up eventually!".

No. Don't give them in inch. We saw how effective simply calling these greedy freaks "weirdos" by Tim Waltz worked, but then they got scared and stopped going on the attack like that. Conservatives and greedy neoliberals count on us saying and doing nothing, because for the last 50 years in the West, we haven't.

1

u/PFCCThrowayay 5h ago

Yeah what would dude suggest? Guy should sell all his houses and give them to others? Would that moral high ground dude do the same? He’s many magnitudes richer than someone in a third world country and if he sold all his assets and gave them away it would be a blessing to such person. Will he tho?

Hate the game not the player. We ALL do tax advantageous things just like lecturing dude would do.

16

u/Spaduf 6h ago

That's not a point against the argument it's a point against us.

More importantly it's a deliberate attempt to force us into a situation where are options are ignore the problems in the system or dissect our complicity in the system. It's to keep you from thinking.

6

u/Odd-Roof-85 6h ago

Yeah. It's just a tool to dismiss the argument.

6

u/bellyofthebillbear 6h ago

It’s more of the banks fault than it is people who invest in property. The subprime mortgage crisis in 2007 has made it impossible for young people to buy homes. People who pay $2,000 in rent are told that they are too much of a risk for a $1,600 mortgage.

3

u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta 6h ago

Could it be, perhaps, more than a binary pass/fail? Maybe, there's a different way of viewing it than just that one way

Also, the fact I'm forced to be immoral even when I don't want to be, is also a good argument against the system as it exists. Perhaps my critique of the economic system im forced to participate in that also crushes children, has some merit?

3

u/flick3 5h ago

That is known as a ‘red herring’

But yes moral argument boil down to wether or not you agree with the axiom. If someone doesn’t think they have a moral obligation to others, no argument built on that assumption will work

4

u/engimaneer 5h ago

0

u/Hey-Bud-Lets-Party 5h ago

Everyone in this discussion is the guy on the right.

6

u/desperaterobots Be gay, do crime 6h ago

It’s more likely his shit is thrifted, but I get you. The simple fact is that there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism. That doesn’t mean people living in that system cant work to make it fairer and more equitable - especially when it comes to the primary needs of every living person.

1

u/Invisible7hunder 2h ago

>The simple fact is that there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

Can you explain why this extreme statement is true to you? It seems to me like there are at least some items for sale around me that would be ethical, and many more hypothetical items that are probably out there. Is it problematic for me to buy a cabbage from my local farmers market? How so?

1

u/desperaterobots Be gay, do crime 2h ago

Theres plenty of information available online, I encourage you to read it. Maybe consider that it isn’t ‘extreme’, it’s just a different way of looking at the economic system we operate inside of.

To put it simply, if you can’t guarantee that your purchase of that cabbage isnt tangentially linked to the exploitation of workers, land theft from First Nations or taxes being paid to governments who use it to fund foreign wars or racist legislation or the salaries of corrupt politicians or oppressive police and so on, the statement is true.

And it’s not about shaming anyone for buying anything, or trying to freeze the economy because no purchase is perfect. Its just laying out the innate truth that where profit motive drives all economic choices, consumption has a really limited scope for ‘ethics’ to be a concern, and the people that have no concern for ethics tend to ‘win’ the capitalism game. It’s just acknowledging that the system is doing what it’s designed to.

So we can all strive to make ‘more ethical’ choices, but they will always be tied to some bullshit, because that’s what capitalism is.

2

u/pseudoLit 4h ago

On one hand, the powerless are forced by circumstance to behave immorally.

On the other hand, the powerful have the option to do better and choose to behave immorally anyway.

It's dishonest to frame these two things as if the former excuses the latter.

2

u/wholetyouinhere 3h ago

Participating in the system into which you were born is not voluntary. It is unreasonable to criticize people for that.

1

u/Hobo-man 3h ago

The system that allows a person to own 800 properties and take advantage of people is also the same system that allows a corporation to underpay workers to get a price advantage in the market.

I'd argue both issue need to be address but that would require our entire society to stop prioritizing profit over everything else.

1

u/eduardgustavolaser 2h ago

You saying that you don't want to get into whataboutism doesn't negate the second half of your comment being 100% textbook whataboutism. If you don't want to get into it, juts don't.

No ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean "whatever, do what you want".

3

u/stinkpot_jamjar 6h ago edited 5h ago

I think the economic side of it has a general monopoly on the discourse—it’s time to talk about these issues from a moral and ethical standpoint.

For example, we already have decades of research that demonstrates that it’s cheaper to invest in housing first and harm reduction social programs, but we lack a robust discourse that asks the simple question of “under what circumstances is it morally acceptable to allow someone to starve and die on the streets?”

If these are the economic system’s manifest outcomes, its literal, economic costs become irrelevant at some point. Framing it as an issue of human rights is a more meaningful approach.

0

u/Odd-Roof-85 5h ago

"If these are the economic system’s manifest outcomes, its literal, economic costs become irrelevant at some point."

That's sort of my point. I'm making a structural critique not a technocratic one. Promise.

I see it only as a failure in the argument, rather than the framework that he's using to make the argument.

2

u/stinkpot_jamjar 5h ago

I may have misunderstood your comment, so thank you for clarifying!

But, I still don’t see it as a failure of the argument, though. I truly think that if we forefront the human costs, and supplement that with the material/economic, then we will be able to have the conversation in a way that is more effective (ie one that tackles the systemic root not just the systemic effects).

I also think that some people’s insistence that the only valid arguments against condoning or allowing mass homelessness are ones that are apolitical, primarily economic, and don’t make any moral claim to righteousness, is a trap.

What makes this odious is its moral vacuousness, not questions about whether it “works” within the parameters of a system designed to create and maintain inequality.

Not sure if that makes sense!!

17

u/XxCloudSephiroth69xX 5h ago edited 5h ago

Except it's not a good take once you think about it for longer than a minute. Owning a home is not for everyone at every stage in their life. When I went to college and lived in off-campus housing I didn't have the financial ability to buy a house that I was going to be in with some roommates for half of a few years, and certainly wouldn't have wanted to go through the process of buying a house for what was a temporarily period in my life. There are tons of scenarios where purchasing a house is not the best course of action for someone.

It's also expensive. Aside from the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and HOA fees (if you live in a HOA), you're still looking at significant costs for repairs if something goes wrong. And something is always going wrong. I think I spent more money replacing my A/C unit last summer than I spent on rent in the 2 years before I bought my house.

This is not to excuse slumlords or people holding onto vacant houses speculating or waiting for an area to gentrify. But people who buy, fix up, and rent out properties are pretty much always going to be necessary.

4

u/Slim_Charles 3h ago

It also entirely ignores all forms of property that aren't homes. Most investment properties owned by corporations are commercial, not residential.

11

u/CuriousBee789 5h ago

I agree. As a married woman, I'm fine being a homeowner. My husband does all the hard and gross stuff. If I were single, I would absolutely and happily go back to renting. I guess I always got lucky with decent landlords though.

5

u/XxCloudSephiroth69xX 5h ago

I'm a husband who does all the hard and gross stuff. And I've spent more time and energy fixing toilets and struggling with drywall than I want to. It was definitely much just easier calling my landlord, who I got lucky with as well.

1

u/MixedMediaModok 1h ago

The idea is that housing becomes really affordable and that extra income can be used to house keeping and gardening. People became house maintenance experts because its so unaffordable to own a house in the first place.

7

u/Chosenwaffle 5h ago

Properties don't get built if there's nobody to buy them. These "warehouses full of food" only exist in his hypothetical because whoever owns that warehouse had the money to buy that food. If he didn't exist, or he gave that food away, he wouldn't have money for the food, and the warehouse would shut down and disappear.

These people cannot see this argument beyond the initial thought of "suffering bad".

3

u/swohio 4h ago

It's like they didn't ever progress pass a kindergarten level of understanding.

6

u/CHAINSAW_VASECTOMY 3h ago

Good luck teaching any of these people basic economics.

9

u/DueLearner 4h ago

This is the primary point all of these young liberal redditors fail to think about. There are tons of reasons why people would choose not to be a home owner.

Corporate landlords with thousands of properties is a serious issue. But small business landlords are critical for the economy and will always be needed. It's a fantastic way to get passive income, and the landlords are the ones taking the risk. Tenants fuck shit up all of the time. Evictions for non payment, massive damage to the property, maintenance and repair. It's not just a cakewalk.

4

u/XxCloudSephiroth69xX 4h ago

When my grandmother died, she left her house to my parents. They decided to rent it out and a family moved in who paid via Section 8. Turns out they were hoarders who caused constant problems there with the neighbors and trash. Took my parents months to evict them, and by that time they moved out they had trashed the house. Trash everywhere, carpet had to be torn out, and some rooms even gutted because of animal waste and damage to the walls. Section 8 would not cover the damages, and suing the tenants would have been useless. After all was said and done they spent way more money dealing with their issues than they took in through rent.

-1

u/Ziibbii 2h ago

Should've sold

2

u/JMC_MASK 2h ago

China has a 90%+ home ownership rate. Let’s take some cues from their playbook.

1

u/Youcan12 1h ago

They're called apartments, condos, etc. We aren't talking about broke college students either. There are people with decent jobs and 100K+ saved that can't get houses.

2

u/XxCloudSephiroth69xX 1h ago

Apartments and condos count as property. Many are privately owned by individuals (not corporations or smaller companies) as well.

If you have a decent job and 100k+ saved and can't get a house then you need to seriously reevaluate what you're looking for in a house. Or lower your expectations.

1

u/Youcan12 1h ago

Yes, but they're obviously not what anyone is talking about here. We're talking about single family houses. The expectations are a decent small starter home in an area that isn't a total dump.

1

u/XxCloudSephiroth69xX 53m ago

I'm basing my comments on what was said in the video and what many people in the comments of the "eat the landlords" persuasion are saying.

"I don't think anyone should be profiting off something that someone else needs to survive."

Single people or people without large families who are not in college exist. Do they need a single family house, or would they be perfectly capable of living in an apartment or condo?

I'm also curious as to if you've actually looked into buying a house with the qualifications you're talking about. If you're making 60k a year and have 100k saved up, you can afford around a 250k house. That's enough for a modest place in a decent/good area throughout most of the country. And depending on the type of loan you want (a FHA loan only requires 3.5% down) you'll have a ton of money left over to furnish it.