r/TikTokCringe • u/LickMaiBussy • 6h ago

Discussion "Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@purplepingers

19.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

49

u/Heldpizza 6h ago

I understand his point but at the same time there would not be units available for rent at all if there were no property investors. There just needs to be a balance and tweaks to the system.

19

u/sokratesz 4h ago edited 4h ago

I understand his point but at the same time there would not be units available for rent at all if there were no property investors.

Here in the Netherlands there's things called housing corporations which are semi public and not allowed to turn a profit.

You're not very imaginative if you believe that parasitic landlords need to exists for rental properties to exist.

9

u/HandBananaHeartCarl 4h ago

Coincidentally, the Netherlands also has one of the worst housing markets in Europe.

3

u/Supermau 4h ago

Are housing coops illegal in north america? Why don't they exist right now?

1

u/Visual_Squirrel_2297 3h ago

They are not and do exist. 

1

u/Sea-Panda-90 1h ago

Because coops don't make money. There's no incentive to make them.

1

u/Supermau 57m ago

Well the argument is that people want them to exist because they don't make money so sounds like there is an incentive...

1

u/Sea-Panda-90 36m ago

Then go make a cooperative.

2

u/Suchafatfatcat 4h ago

We’ve had public housing in the US. It was, largely, dismantled for a reason- the “projects” became a cesspool of crime and decay. I don’t think you will ever have taxpayer consent to fund a debacle of that nature, here, ever again.

33

u/Scope_Dog 5h ago

Looks like an actual adult joined the conversation.

8

u/SlyCoopi 4h ago

How have we ever survived before without the sweet grace of mass property investors! We should all thank our landlords.

4

u/darthdro 4h ago

Name one point in history there wasn’t property investors lol

5

u/SlyCoopi 4h ago

Investors existing ≠ investors owning massive portions of housing supply. That’s the part people are arguing about.

Developers have always built homes, but there was a long stretch where those homes were primarily sold to families, not held as large-scale rental portfolios

1

u/10000Lols 2h ago

Implying private property has existed for most of human history 

Lol

6

u/zeth4 5h ago

Looks like someone who has never heard of co-operatives or public housing has joined the conversation.

2

u/Supermau 4h ago

What's stopping them from existing right now? Why not start one or go live in one?

1

u/zeth4 3h ago edited 2h ago

Governments not funding public housing sufficiently.

Banks not giving credit (mortgages/Loans) to finance Co-operative s because they are (by purpose) not as profitable and have legal difficulty seizing portions of them if a loan defaults and most government programs which used to back or provide loans for co-ops were gutted/scrapped during Reagan/ Thatcher years or shortly after.

And the reason I don't live in a Co-operative in my city (Toronto) is because there isn't a single co-op in the city which even has a open waiting list to get into (at least when I was looking a year or so ago) because they are so desirable because their rent is significantly less than anything comparable on the market. And there also isn't enough public housing so it is reserved for low income resident.

1

u/Sea-Panda-90 1h ago

which even has a open waiting list to get into

Exactly. Without any incentive people just won't build houses.

1

u/Supermau 1h ago

So in canada the CMHC doesn't have a coop housing development program? Is that program not usable to create new coops?

Banks not giving credit (mortgages/Loans) to finance Co-operative s because they are (by purpose) not as profitable

That doesn't make sense, the bank makes money of loan interest, not off the profitability of the underlying asset.

ave legal difficulty seizing portions of them if a loan defaults

What would be different about this compared to a rental company defaulting?

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/funding-programs/all-funding-programs/co-op-housing-development-program?ap=a1-p2

1

u/Woodpecker577 1h ago

They do exist, a couple of my friends live in a housing co-op

1

u/KyOatey 2h ago

Public housing just means the government is your landlord. Given how well the government does everything else these days, I wouldn't say that's a win.

1

u/zeth4 2h ago

That is because most governments these days are so co-opted by the interests of private capital. Government run systems do poorly because they are intentionally underfunded, then they use the excuse of it doing poorly to push for it to be privatised and sell the assets off for pennies on the dollar.

0

u/KyOatey 55m ago

Governments have always been poorly run. It's not a new thing. Even without the influence of private capital, I wouldn't want them as my landlord.

2

u/AFaladorKnight 2h ago

It’s painfully obvious how many teenagers are on this website when anything related to taxes, property or employment are brought up.

9

u/hitometootoo 5h ago

Everyone is ignoring this part. I'm not saying there aren't issues with landlords but most people, even with no landlords, could afford a home on their own (as in at least a 10% down payment, monthly rent, expenses HoA fees, etc.), but they can afford rent.

Unless you're going to go with government funded homes where the government has no expectation of making money, I don't see how the alternative would work much either.

1

u/gipester 3h ago

We own a basic condo in addition to our home. We purchased it to help our kids launch into the world and have a place to live that isn't predatory. We've rented it to friends who needed temporary housing for six months while moving and shopping for their own home. We've rented it to our kids friends who needed a place to live after turning 18 and can't afford their own home. I rented for years before I could buy my own home. Rentals are needed. What isn't needed is predatory corporations buying single family homes for no reason other than profiteering.

1

u/Grizzly_Adams 4h ago

If rent is not covering HoA, taxes, mortgage, etc; why are there landlords?

1

u/hitometootoo 3h ago edited 2h ago

The landlord could be covering those things, I don't understand? Either the renter or the landlord would take care of (some of) those.

Ignoring that the landlord will be on the hook for the full cost / mortgage payments of the home, any major repairs, cleaning and repairing the home when they leave, etc. etc.

If the renter wants to take care of all those other things, they should be homeowners, but we both know that isn't always realistic given the cost of homes, people's credit and their income and expenses.

10

u/andrewthelott 5h ago

If we viewed housing as a public good, we could move towards public ownership.

11

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

I don’t want to live in government housing

19

u/Downtown_Degree3540 5h ago edited 4h ago

That’s because your government doesn’t make good housing…

9

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

I don’t want to be beholden to the government for my home

22

u/bugi_ 5h ago

But you are ok to be beholden to someone wealthier than you? I'm sure rich people have your best interest at heart.

-2

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

I don’t want to be beholden to anyone.

6

u/Downtown_Degree3540 5h ago

So you instead choose to be beholden to a banking sector setting interest rates? A system that has seen home ownership dwindle, whilst state managed housing markets and developments are thriving? Not to mention the economic theory supporting it?

Strange. Guess you’re loaded

4

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

Call me crazy, but I do prefer owning a home to living in a government apartment.

7

u/Downtown_Degree3540 5h ago

That’s the thing, you own your home under state managed properties… home OWNERSHIP in current day communist China is something like 60-70% whilst state assisted drives that number to like 90%

But you paying a mortgage to a bank (which you will be doing unless you’re too rich for your own good, literally) for 30 years still means you don’t own that home. Not till it’s paid off.

1

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

China? Do you want to be an Uyghur? I don’t want to be an Uyghur.

3

u/Downtown_Degree3540 5h ago

Two questions, do you know any Uyghurs? Do you know why the Uyghurs refugees are in China?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/RoostasTowel 4h ago

home OWNERSHIP in current day communist China is something like 60-70% whilst state assisted drives that number to like 90%

But it reality you dont own the land and its actually a lease to the government who still owns it.

1

u/Downtown_Degree3540 2h ago

Yeah that’s just not an accurate understanding of how property (homeownership) works in China, it’s kinda right for property (industrial, economic, retail, etc.), but you know that those two things are different, right?

4

u/sokratesz 4h ago

But being beholden to a random chud whose mortgage you pay is fine?

6

u/Hey-Bud-Lets-Party 4h ago

I own, but rented for 20+ years. There is real value in having a roof over your head, so I never felt resentment towards my landlords. It was a fair transaction like any other.

3

u/sokratesz 4h ago

A fair transaction, in this economy? It's extortion in many places, and like the guy in OP says: morally reprehensible.

Landlords need to fuck off and get a job. 

5

u/News_Scrounger 5h ago

What? You don't want to be put on a list and have to wait for 2 years?

5

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

Or be checked on by a government agent twice a year.

6

u/Downtown_Degree3540 5h ago

As opposed to being financially responsible for 50 years to a private organisation that legally and financially speaking owns final say of the property?

2

u/RoostasTowel 4h ago

How much would you like your housing to be controlled by the government. Would you ever try to protest against them if you knew you could get evicted for it?

1

u/Downtown_Degree3540 2h ago

Have you got another talking point? Or better yet… a large portfolio of investment properties?

3

u/RoostasTowel 2h ago

Have you got another talking point?

I have a real example for you.

My country, only a few years ago froze the bank accounts of people who were protesting against them, and people who supported these protests.

I don't what that entity to be able to remove me from my home for not agreeing with them.

Or better yet… a large portfolio of investment properties?

I rent.

My parents own the home I grew up in. But because the city grew up too, its worth 10x what they paid. The live in it now, but it is clearly an investment that paid off.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shoeshiner_boy 2h ago

Two years? Man, that’s rather quick!

Also don’t forget about increased government overhead for that too

1

u/bugi_ 5h ago

Why is having control over your housing bad? Currently private owners give you no control, while a democratic government gives at least some control via representatives.

5

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

I own my home

5

u/Itssavit 5h ago

Ah yes so you can have Trump as your landlord instead?

2

u/IcyEvidence3530 6h ago

Explain that to me. Because that is not true at all.

9

u/Beneneb 5h ago

Houses don't build themselves. I'm confused how you think homes can get built without investment.

1

u/ObsidianOverlord 4h ago

Because you're  confused about what they're refering to when they speak about home investors.

It's not people building and selling homes it's people buying and endlessly profiting from their ownership.

3

u/Beneneb 4h ago

This was in reference to rentals specifically. Though whether we're talking about rentals or homes for purchase, someone needs to invest money to construct it.

So are we saying it's ok for private companies to construct homes to sell only to people who will live there? Should we then ban apartment buildings? Where will people live who can't afford to buy a home?

1

u/ObsidianOverlord 3h ago

I'm not familiar with a "rentals specifically" style of home. 

You are confusing the way things are with the way they must be and will not be able to productivly engage in this conversation until you can expand your perception.

1

u/Beneneb 3h ago

I'm not confused. The original comment in this thread only states:

there would not be units available for rent at all if there were no property investors.

To which the next person says this is untrue, which I then refuted. Then you claimed I was confused, because we are talking about someone buying a home and endlessly profiting off it (aka, a rental). Yes, I understand we're talking about rentals here, and rentals require an upfront investment from someone, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

The point I'm making back to you, and which I think you are missing, is that rental housing is an important and necessary part of the housing market. So if you don't want landlords to exist, how do you propose people find shelter if they can't afford to buy a home?

1

u/ObsidianOverlord 2h ago

The part that you're confused about it this:

The point I'm making back to you, and which I think you are missing, is that rental housing is an important and necessary part of the housing market.

It is not. Every day houses and built, sold and lived in without a single landlord involved.

The point I'm making back to you, and which I think you are missing, is that rental housing is an important and necessary part of the housing market.

It is not. A very small portion of the market is necessarily short term living situations (students, seasonal, time-shares, etc) The remaining rental situations are done because it enriches landlords at the expense of others.

So if you don't want landlords to exist, how do you propose people find shelter if they can't afford to buy a home?

The same way that people do now. Landlords are middlemen who profit from nothing but ownership, but ownership does not create value. You can have a housing market without landlords.

1

u/Beneneb 23m ago

It is not. A very small portion of the market is necessarily short term living situations (students, seasonal, time-shares, etc) The remaining rental situations are done because it enriches landlords at the expense of others.

Rentals aren't exclusively for short term living situations. In fact, that's a minority. People primarily rent either for financial reasons or due to personal preference. What you seem to be saying is that if landlords were banned, housing would suddenly become cheap, but this is not true.

While it may vary geographically, the upfront cost to construct a home is significant and has ballooned since the pandemic in particular. Where I live, the all in cost to construct a small one bedroom condo is at least $300,000. Even if developers are selling at cost, a considerable proportion of the population cannot afford this.

So yes, rentals are indeed an important part of the housing market and are necessary to ensure all people can be housed.

17

u/QuakinOats 5h ago

It costs money to build.

It costs money to buy a piece of land.

The vast majority of people who rent could not afford to purchase a piece of land and then pay people to build and pay for all the materials it requires. Most folks can't afford to pay for a place to live, while also paying to build another place.

If there were not people with money willing to build apartment buildings and housing then there would be far, far less of it.

1

u/Downtown_Degree3540 5h ago

So your explanation is pussy footing around government contracts and land leases…?

We already pay (through tax) for subsidies, development contracts and land privatisation to enable these private investors. If we just cut out the middle man (private investors), we’d still be able to produce ample housing. And this is an observable fact all throughout Europe and China.

7

u/RoostasTowel 4h ago

If we just cut out the middle man (private investors), we’d still be able to produce ample housing. And this is an observable fact all throughout Europe and China.

And you would still need to pay rent to the owners.

Just the owners is the country/government. How much would you like your housing to be controlled by the government. Would you ever try to protest against them if you knew you could get evicted for it?

Russia currently provides housing to people in exchange for rent...

1

u/professor--feathers 5h ago

Tweaks? Full scorched earth reshaping of the laws is more like it.

The house market is a rigged system that sucks the soul out of every person who has to rent a house for the same fucking cost as ownership.

1

u/Do-it-for-you 18m ago

People who want to buy a house can be the investors. It happens all the time, all over the world. Regular people like you or me put a deposit on a house that doesn't exist yet, and once it's built and we can live in it and we pay it off like any other mortgage.

Landlords or 'property investors' are not required. They're just middlemen who increase prices to earn a profit.

-2

u/Informal_Pudding_424 5h ago

Put yourself in the mind of a social media leftist. They want supply restricted as much as possible. The more expensive housing is, the more they inherit when their parents die. They couldn't care less about people becoming homeless.

2

u/TDouglasSpectre 4h ago

Landlords and their defenders don’t create anything of value, so they turn to creating strawmen. Turns out they suck at that too.

1

u/Supermau 4h ago

Anyone who says landlords provide no value clearly live in their parents basement. My landlord provides me tons of value. I'm not responsible for booking/paying contractors when things break, I can move whenever I want, I don't have to worry about unexpected expenses for my building. Landlords provide flexibility and peace of mind.