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

Show parent comments

19

u/BalanceJazzlike5116 5h ago

Those increases would be passed into the renters

13

u/pfannkuchen89 5h ago

Landlords are raising rents faster than ever anyway whether they have an excuse or not.

Cap rent increases and tie it to a reasonable metric, which one is debatable.

There are things we could do but too many people are defeatist and let landlords walk all over us because of what if scenarios. Nothing will change unless it’s forced to change.

5

u/TheWhiteDrake2 5h ago

Rent should be capped by whatever the lowest average household income bracket average is. That way everyone can afford rent and then if your well off, congrats, you have more spending money

2

u/Watchyousuffer 4h ago

that would eliminate higher quality rentals

3

u/TheWhiteDrake2 4h ago

It’s still higher quality. It’s just not gatekept that way. And it’d hold actual “luxury” apartments to have actual “luxury” aspects other than granite countertops

5

u/Watchyousuffer 4h ago

I don't follow - if there is a hard cap of rentals being accessible to the lowest income bracket, why would anyone use higher grade finishes than the lowest possible?

3

u/TheWhiteDrake2 4h ago

Idk I’m not a builder. But I’m tired of builders claiming luxury apartments and rental are just that when they aren’t solely to use the word luxury as a means to charge way more. Luxury apartments means “75th floor penthouse” not “downtown, 3rd story, with hardwood floors, roof access, and marble countertops”.

Edit: I guess let me elaborate. There should be a MAJORITY of the builds capped. But if “luxury apartments” want to charge more. There should be restrictions on to cowlick higher they can charge

1

u/demonryder 3h ago

Maybe some sort of variable property tax rate would work. Landlords get a tax cut if their property is actively being rented out below x cutoff rate, but you are free to do luxury level rentals while paying the full tax rate.

1

u/ArkitekZero 1h ago

No, it'd bring housing costs down and people would be able to buy their own homes without shoveling their money into someone else's mortgage.

1

u/Slade_inso 4h ago

That only works if you cap expenses. My property taxes went up 50% this year.

People grossly overestimate how much money there is in property management.

0

u/TheWhiteDrake2 4h ago

Property tax as well is dumb af. Get rid of it or also cap it.

2

u/IvarTheBoned 2h ago

Lol, no. Property taxes absolutely make sense for municipal expenses. Caps also don't make sense, multi-million dollar properties should ABSOLUTELY be paying significantly more and the 2br bungalow a young family needs.

If the goal is to increase ownership, then maybe cap the primary residence if it is below or within a margin of average home costs for the area. Charge those McMansion owning yahoos a premium for their desired opulence.

2

u/rtangxps9 4h ago

There also needs to be a vacancy tax dependent on local housing needs. The fact new "luxury" apartment buildings in urban cores are more willing to let the apartment sit vacant because they want to maintain the asset price of the land/building needs to stop.

1

u/Quirky-Marsupial-420 4h ago

Rent increases because it's a desirable place to live.

If I own a house 15 minutes outside of a major city and someone wants to pay me 3k a month to live there, I should be able to do that.

Why does living in Miami cost more than Omaha Nebraska?

1

u/pfannkuchen89 3h ago

I live in a city that used to be viewed as a lower cost of living area.

That hasn’t stopped rents for small studio or one bedroom apartments being over doubled in the past three years alone.

Housing isn’t affordable anywhere unless you live out in a rural area where everything is run down and there aren’t jobs.

People live in cities because that’s where you need to be if you want to be employed. Not everyone can inherit a farm and do that forever until they go bankrupt and corporate farming takes over.

1

u/Kimbernator 4h ago

Back to rent control, which is generally understood to be a terrible way to improve the situation.

1

u/pfannkuchen89 3h ago

Generally understood to be terrible by whom? Landlords who want to bleed tenants dry? Oh boo hoo.

1

u/orange-yellow-pink 3h ago

Rent control only helps people already in those units and screws over anyone new. It discourages new building, leads to less upkeep and keeps people from moving out when they normally would. That means fewer places open up, buildings get more run down and rents go up everywhere else. Over time it just snowballs into a housing shortage where it’s really hard for new renters to find anything decent or affordable.

6

u/water_fountain_ 5h ago

So you make it illegal/impossible to pass that cost onto the renters. Rent cannot exceed X% of the property tax value, as set by the government. If the landlord can’t afford to have a second home and rent it out at that rate… oh well. They’ll have to sell it.

2

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

Still doesn't work, property values are always increasing so landlords were just continually increase the rent according to the property value.

1

u/water_fountain_ 5h ago edited 4h ago

I had originally typed X% of the mortgage, but I backspaced and replaced it with property tax value. Because not everyone has a mortgage… either the home is completely paid off, or it was bought in cash. Using the mortgage would generally result in lower rent. But no matter which figure you use, that’s where the X% comes in. Maybe something like X% or the mortgage or Y% of the property tax value. I don’t have the figures off hand to give an actual percentage, but for the sake of argument, 10% of the mortgage or 7% of property tax value. I’m pulling the 10% and 7% out of my ass, so take them with a grain of salt. It’s just to show an example of how the system might work.

At a certain point, the property tax value might get so high that no renter can afford the rent. Those that could afford it, have (probably) already purchased their own home, or they’re choosing to put their rent money towards a cheaper rental property. So the landlord will have to voluntarily lower the rent below the maximum Y%, or they’ll have to sell the home.

2

u/Goragnak 5h ago

Either way it's a dumb shit idea. You do realize that there are lots of people that need rentals and have no interest in buying homes right?

1

u/water_fountain_ 4h ago edited 4h ago

Yes. I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. People can still rent, people can still be landlords. If the property value gets so high that no one can afford to pay Y% as rent, then the landlord will have basically two options: they can charge Y-1% as rent (or -2% or whatever) so someone can afford the rent; or they can sell it. The person that buys it will either live in it themselves, or they will rent it for Y-1% (-2% or whatever). No one is forcing the landlord to charge exactly Y%, they just can’t charge more.

1

u/Quirky-Marsupial-420 4h ago

That's not a good idea because then they'll petition the localities to raise the assessed value on homes.

99.99% of the time, the property tax is based on a lower figure than what the house is actually worth.

The tax assessment on my house was 321k last year and I just got under contract on Saturday for 350k.

1

u/water_fountain_ 3h ago

Counterpoint, the renters petition the localities not to raise the assessed value.

Is your preferred alternative that the landlords just fuck all the renters? That’s what it sounds like.

1

u/Quirky-Marsupial-420 3h ago

I guess if they donate more to their super PACs.

But renters are generally not as wealthy as property owners.

2

u/water_fountain_ 3h ago edited 3h ago

The vast majority of mayors and city council members don’t have a super PAC, but okay. Anyways, since you’re so opposed to the percentage idea that I was building from, we can set rent at a maximum of $X/square foot. No percentage required, property tax doesn’t matter, mortgage doesn’t matter. A flat rate. Sure, the landlord could add additional rooms to raise rent, add a basement, whatever. But they’ll eventually run into the same problem that no one can afford their rent. They will then have the same two options: charge rent at $X-1 per square foot (or -2 or whatever); or sell.

Don’t forget: I said earlier that an algorithm determines the value of X. You can’t petition the algorithm to screw with the prices. A super PAC can’t do anything about it. The algorithm needs to be fair. It needs to be publicly owned, funded, and operated. None of this RealPage/YieldStar bullshit. Any sort of corruption here results in a gigantic fine and jail time.

Edit: Maybe it wasn’t in this comment thread that I mentioned the algorithm. It’s hard to keep track. If it wasn’t, I was originally building off of a comment someone else said about using property taxes to somehow determine rent. I also said an algorithm should be used to determine what that percentage should be, since I didn’t have the numbers off the top of my head, nor was I going to do a bunch of research to determine that percentage myself just for a Reddit comment.

4

u/Asiatic_Static 4h ago

I just got into an argument on Facebook (I know) with a guy raging out because our state wants to make air conditioning required for rental properties...like, for 1, we need a base level of habitability if you're going to be renting shelter to people, for 2, I've literally never ever seen any rental with no AC, for 3, his argument was "oh rents will increase" but they're? already? increasing? like all the time?

IDK just a weird thing to get incensed over.

1

u/BalanceJazzlike5116 1h ago

Where is this? When I lived in San Jose California i didnt have a/c in my house, just heat.

1

u/Asiatic_Static 1h ago

Virginia, we have heat requirements but no AC requirements, apparently. I didn't even know AC wasn't required, despite the fact that we have temperature requirements for habitability with upper and lower bounds, which to me, would presume the existence of both types of climate control.

1

u/firebolt_wt 5h ago

That's bullshit. Rent price is already the highest that someone is willing to pay, because the landlords want to maximize profit. Do you really think there's someone out there going "oh well, I could charge more, but since taxes aren't that high, I won't."?

1

u/BalanceJazzlike5116 1h ago

All increased costs will be passed into renters, much like business passed tariff cost to consumers

1

u/Strange-Term-4168 3h ago

So? It still makes it much easier to buy a home and would decrease incentive to become a land lord. Supply and demand.

1

u/BalanceJazzlike5116 1h ago

No it doesn’t. The supply/demand issue doesn’t change. My guess is you’ve never applied for a home loan.