Lazy moochers

If i had Jeff Bozos money, I'd buy a bunch of houses and offer them to the homeless to get the back into society. Fucking bozo Bozos is. And that's why I'll never have Jeff Bozos money.

Landlord said to me "property tax has gone up. This is my only form of income. Will need to increase rent"

Told him "yeah, everything has gone up and my paycheck is still the same".

Like, these types of relationships are so parasitic. This is the "nice" mom and pop style landlord too that every liberal seems to want to give a pass too.

Sure, are they less bad than the big corporate faceless landlords? Yes. But the entire relationship is the problem.

They get to justify forcing me out of my home because the value of the house that they own WENT UP.

That's why their property tax is more. They literally own something that is more valuable and making it further impossible for me to ever buy a place of my own.

This is such a shit show of a post.

Please use gender neutral inclusive language, instead of landlord, use the gender neutral term, landleech.

I was ready to hate on this post... but you right.
Seconding this motion

Hey, those buildings and apartments aren’t gonna rent themselves! /s

Rent is due in 5 days.

And then they raise rent. For what? They haven't upgraded anything. They haven't added any of that value to the property. Every year the house gets older. Cars lose value every year even if you maintain it perfectly.

The land is what’s gaining value, not the structure on it
Good tenants make the neighborhood more desirable. So the rent being raised is a way to punish good Tennant, and steal their hard earn benefit from their existential labour.
And then they try to fuck you over when you leave the place by pinning all the costs of normal dilapidation on you. Fortunately where I live the law forbids it but it doesn't stop them from trying every time.
If there were only a set number of cars available and creating more was prohibitively expensive, cars would appreciate in value as well.
And to be clear, I'm not talking about the house; building more of those is expensive, but doable. It's building more land that's the tricky part
- When I did a vacation in Sri Lanka our guide told us some cars appreciated i price because the government increased (I believe it was that) import taxes.

Once again, may I introduce you to GEORGISM.

Please, I know lemmy is a bit left leaning, and georgism are mostly libertarians/liberal, but the ideology is so centrist and common sense I'm sure even far left communist advocates can get behind it.

Georgism is great but we also have problem with corporations so georgism isn't enough. We need socialism or at least distributism
The reason Georgism fell out of favor on the left is because Marxism already develops beyond where Georgism falls flat. It's certainly broadly appealing, in that liberals can get behind it rather quickly, but it falls short of Marxist economics in completeness, to the point that it doesn't really bother resolving the fundamental problems with capitalist exploitation, centralization, crisis, or production and overproduction, it just focuses on rent.
It's also very difficult to get through, it's a reformist approach that depends on asking those that have full control of the economy to make it less exploitative. That doesn't happen without revolution, at which point you can go far beyond and address core, systemic issues.
Leftists are aware of Goergism. They don't generally take it seriously because it's just 'one weird trick' reformism that's trying to save capitalism from itself. It doesn't change what capitalism is or the historical process it drives, it'll get clawed back immediately just like every other social democratic reform, and it would cause a full on capital revolt if you somehow magic lamp'ed it into practice such that you might as well just do the real revolution and actually overthrow capitalism for the same amount of effort.
but the ideology is so centrist and common sense
I really just commented as an excuse to lol at this line.
Can you give a TLDR for this if possible
- It boils down to property tax as a means of preventing land accumulation and tax revenue generation.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
  I don’t see how that would have worked even when it was invented.
  Right now you can see how the rich own all the land and have no need to use or sell it. This way they create a shortage and can charge a higher price for the land they use or sell. IMO the only way to break this up to stop charging property tax at all - because all land ownership goes back to the state. If someone wants to use land they rent it from the state. If they do not use or misuse rented land the land goes to a different renter (or to the state).
Hey there. Never heard of it, actually. Thanks, I'll find a time to read about it.
What I find interesting in this particular libertarian initiative so far, is that it is addressing an existing systematic issue. Almost all other libertarians I come around seem to be speaking about their and everyone else's morality and righteousness, naively thinking that once we all become moral and righteous, society would become as well.
- To be fair, you haven't heard of it because it isn't particularly relevant. Marxism already develops beyond where Georgism stops, so anyone who is disgruntled with capitalism already has a much more influential, developed, and accurate framework to go with.

How do people still argue that landlords are useful and necessary?

The people saying that are usually hoping to become landlords themselves.
By being landlords or personally knowing landlords.
- I swear my uncle is a good landlord. Keeps prices low, I swear he doesn't rip off his renters. He would never do that.
  If there were as many good landlords as I have heard this story we wouldn't have any problems Kyle, sit the fuck back down.
They kinda are necessary, given how they're the byproduct of capitalism's private property model and its commodification.
You could technically remove them by having the state manage all the housing, but that's overly idealistic given how that'd go against the ruling class interests which would cause heavy lobbying by big landowners. It would also make the state a monopoly landowner which would have its own implications.
In other words, they're necessary not because they're useful, but because of how dogshit the system is.
My parents own multiple rental properties and completely straight face told me it's a charity cause they rent to people who can't afford homes.
Meanwhile I'm engaging with my mutual aid group every week handing out about 400 meals, and survival gear for people who can't afford anything.
Glad their fucking charity has turned enough profit to pay off the rentals, their main home, and their vacation spot though. /s
I just found an article (from 1955) by my grandma where she argued that she prefers renting over building a house because she has more freedom that way. She can move more easily because she doesn't have to find a buyer for her house, she doesn't have to worry about something breaking because that's on the landlord to fix and she doesn't have to go into debt to live somewhere.
As far as I know she never owned a home, always rented. But all her kids bought houses.
- Sure, but it sounds like she’s never been evicted for no reason.
- I had a coworker liked that. He enjoyed renting because it meant having fewer responsibilities.
  I disagreed, and countered that renting means being more dependent on somebody else. Some landlords are excellent at responding to repair calls, but there are so many more that will leave you hanging for an indetermined amount of time, while leaks continue or appliances break. Personally, I'd rather not have the quality of life in my own home be dependent on someone who doesn't really care about me.
  Sadly, I don't have much of a choice. I would prefer being able to pick my own repair people or just fix simple things myself. Alas, like so many others, I work full time but remain stuck in the rent trap. So much for freedom.
But but who will extract the remaining surplus value that the employers missed?
People? Like IRL? I've only ever seen it happen online.

You can tell it's hard earned from all the neglect

Landlord = banned.
- What did he say? Not a landlord myself, but I'm always curious to hear both sides. I think there can be good landlords, had one myself.. Didn't raise rent on us, took care of the place when things went wrong, even offered to sell the place to us but we weren't ready financially at the time..
  Some people choose to rent instead of buying for the sake of not having to keep up with house maintenance, and in that case, the landlord I speak of, I'd argue was a good landlord. Win win for both parties. Not common, I know, but speaking in absolutes is rarely productive.
- Hell yeah
- So you're visa/MC now?
  Don't like it? BANNED!