Why do some say they own or have bought something that they technically haven't (e.g. domain names, expensive things, etc.)?
Why do some say they own or have bought something that they technically haven't (e.g. domain names, expensive things, etc.)?
Wouldn't leasing or renting be more accurate depending on what's involved and the circumstances?
FYI, some domains can genuinely be acquired for an indefinite period, as the delegation has no expiration period. So long as the domain is kept in good standing (eg two working authoritative nameservers) and doesn't violate the parent domains' policies, it will persist. Granted, few people go through this rather-old process to get such domains but they do exist. See my earlier comment.
Thanks for this info! I was unaware of this given how rarely it's mentioned.
I requested a PTR record once from my ISP. They first didn’t understand what it was, then said they didn’t provide it. I didn’t have a static IP but still.
For domains, you actually own them. If you define ownership as being able to trade them compared to leasing something where you are not allowed to sell the item for example.
I just thought it's more of an issue of language/expression than anything... Methinks the concept of "leasing/renting" for an indefinite amount of time might be quite new in human history, so maybe we just don't have a better word for it
Case in point... From a pure technical standpoint, I thought a game I purchased on Steam or an audiobook from Amazon is technically "leased indefinitely with no additional fees", but doesn't the lack of additional fees make it equivalent to owning something?
And as otherwise pointed out, under capitalist systems you can literally own a home, but would still have to pay taxes to pay for maintenance of publicly shared resources... so at what time should we call it "leased" instead
Well, we do have the words leasing and renting.
The difference between owning games on steam and actually owning a game? When steam shuts down, you suddenly don't own any games anymore.
When you own a house, you can do whatever you want with it. If you choose to use it without utilities, you can for no extra cost. And paying taxes doesn't really have anything to do with ownership.if anything taxes are proof of your ownership.
The big one of course is home ownership, despite having to pay the government for the rest of your life.
I don't know where this conspiracy theory comes from. Property taxes aren't a rent, but a service fee. Government need money to pay for road, police, hospital, school, culture and everything making your property worth something.
Nobody is disputing the need for taxes or what their purpose is. The issue is that taxing a homestead is effectively a lease, even if not written as such.
It also begs the question, why are you being taxed more than me? We use the same roads, schools and services. Yet assuming you're a homeowner you're paying more for the same shit.
In that case though you own the property, however the government or courts can attach a lien to the property IF you fail to pay taxes as part of your dues to society for things like roads and schools.
Don't like paying for such things? Go find some rock in the middle of nowhere and make your own way outside of the bounds of an established nation and provide for everything yourself.
It's a scam that you're forced to pay homeowner taxes on a home that the bank actually owns.
And, they force you to pay mortgage insurance (against yourself) if for some reason you can't pay your mortgage. In the event you can't pay, they make you leave the house AND reap the benefits of the insurance claim. I'm sorry, if the bank wants to bet against you that's one thing, but forcing you to pay the bill to bet against yourself is massively unfair.
It's entirely possible that you could be unable to afford the mortgage payment because of the additional costs of the extra insurance they force you to pay, to insure them against you not being able to pay. Think about that.
This is entirely separate from homeowners insurance, which is a whole other scam they force you to pay.
There should be a law to force mortgage lenders to disclose the full price of the loan at the time you take the loan. For example, if a home is $200k, a typical 30-year mortgage for that home will have you paying something like $450k by the time you finish paying it off. This should be shown to the buyer at the time you take the loan.
I mean technically you own the house and the bank owns your loan (with house as collateral), but I do get your point about taxes. However, if the bank had to pay the taxes, they'd just wind up incorporated into the loan. And if the bank actually owned the home, you'd need their approval for any changes.
As for mortgage insurance, you can avoid that with a large enough down payment (20%).
As for the full cost of the loan, I thought that is part of the standard paperwork? If not, sounds like you might have had a bad realtor. You can also look up that info online with any mortgage calculator.
I never understood the concept of owning a home when for most it's actually owing a mortgage and maybe owning part of a home, depending on how it might sell.
'Expensive things'? Houses? Cars? Stocks? Businesses? Art? What are you thinking of here?
In the vein of houses and cars, yeah. I should get in a better habit of elaborating on ambiguous terms in the body, only haven't as I've mixed experience with people skipping over those.
When you take out a loan/mortgage, the bank does not own the property you purchase with those funds. You own the property, and you use it essentially as collateral to secure the loan. (It's considered a lien.) The bank can take ownership of the property if you violate the terms of the agreement, typically by failing to pay what you owe, but the bank doesn't own the property.