Comment by pc86
9 days ago
You have that option, it's called buying a house and getting a mortgage. You just rent from the bank for 30 years first. But you're not thinking x=30 with any responsibility other than writing a check, I bet. If I had to guess, I'd say you want x<10 and you still don't want to pay for maintenance, or property taxes, or have the value reassessed as soon as you take occupancy, or be forced to stay there if you decide to leave. You want all the benefit with none of the cost or risk. It's fine to want that but let's not pretend "rent should be illegal" is a serious or reasonable policy proposal.
There's a reason why a mortgage with very little down payment is a lot more than comparable rent.
> You have that option, it's called buying a house and getting a mortgage.
A landlord will happily swallow 50% of your income but a bank will start to feel bad about a ~30% debt to income ratio, so no you can't really.
Reminder that a 300k mortgage over 30 years at 5% costs you 600k in the end, so you're fucked either way, at best your kids might benefit from your investment.
Housing got way more expensive since the 2000s, most people are priced out of buying a house, most can't even qualify for a mortgage to afford an average house.
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/34534.jpeg
The average Joe, well, median Joe in that case, living alone in say France/Germany/UK can barely qualify for a 200k mortgage over 30 years, and that won't get you much unless you plan on living like a student your whole life
> A landlord will happily swallow 50% of your income but a bank will start to feel bad about a ~30% debt to income ratio, so no you can't really.
It's almost as if the banks know they're very likely to lose money by approving loans people are statistically unlikely to be able to make 360 on-time payments for.
> Reminder that a 300k mortgage over 30 years at 5% costs you 600k in the end
100% true and stated this way makes it sound like it's the evil bankers, but really it's just the way math works.
> most people are priced out of buying a house
I don't think "most" is accurate here, especially if you include areas don't have insane NIMBY restrictions on building like SF and NYC.
This[0] shows there are absolutely places more affordable than others. My one complaint is that if everything gets more expensive the map doesn't really change so it could be better.
And I've heard the rebuttal before about "that's where the jobs are" (false) or "that's where I grew up." I get it, but living in high-demand places is not a constitutional right. Not having your own home in a major downtown metro is not a violation of your rights. If you can't afford to live somewhere, you should move. I'm in the 4th state I've lived in in my life right now. I might be here until I die, I might live in 4 more. Lots of things play into that but a major part of the calculus is whether or not I can afford to live the life I want here.
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-housing-affordab...
And with a few years of 10% inflation on the value of money etc... that 600 at x=30 was a bad deal
1 reply →
> It's fine to want that but let's not pretend "rent should be illegal" is a serious or reasonable policy proposal.
So its fine for you that there are people owning 20+ properties speculating on profit for basic human needs? Its literally Nestlé "this is MY water" behavior.
Most people here are pro capitalism. It has flaws but you’re also being blind to its benefits.
If 20 people need homes to live in and can’t afford to build them, suddenly landlords/investors have a place because they built housing inventory where others couldn’t. They won’t do that for free though and why should they.
I remember your username from prior threads, you’re a troll man. Take this crap to Reddit.
It's a bit telling of your own biases that government/public housing seems to have escaped mention as "having a place" in this scenario.
1 reply →
Let them profit off commercial real estate, or a million other things that capitalism provides.
The nestle statements about profiting off people’s need for drinking water were universally viewed as disgusting. We shouldn’t always profit off the basic needs of other humans.
4 replies →
Say they don't. If they can't afford to buy their own house, now those people no longer have a place to live. How is that better?
[flagged]