Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You're making passive income from disability, a pension system that no longer exists, and owning 3 houses you didn't pay for based off of programs no longer available to anyone starting out now. While collecting "market rate" rent (which conveniently always increases).
The disability, I'm fine with. My buddy had the same thing from the Marines and he more than earned the 100% rating, as I'm sure you and your wife did.
However, this whole thing where you're talking about with retiring off of passive income... that was a LOT of words to say:
I really wish you would have said this first, because your long winded story about houses and "passive income streams" gives me the impression that you know the house-related part all boils down to being a landlord, and I get the impression you buried that fact to obfuscate it. You're making money from other people's work, in the form of the rent they pay to you (minus a small fee to the property managers), while doing literally no work yourself, as you explicitly explained.
He's actually even more of a dick it turns out.
The problem is not landlords, which have existed for thousands of years. The problem is that the first time homebuyer programs suck ass. They're like "only 3% down payment! But you have to pay extra PMI, so it's still expensive monthly."
If the government really wanted to subsidize housing, they would subsidize home construction workers and materials. Right now old construction workers have to retire due to age or become contractors. So there are a ton of crappy contractors who have no business sense and a lot of construction experience.
Imagine if you could go to school for free to build your own house! Land in the US is almost free outside of major cities. The expensive part is workers and materials.
Just because landlords have existed thousands of years doesn't make the situation right. There are lots of harmful things society has been doing or did for thousands of years. Feudalism isn't one of the high points of humanity, to say the least.
If he lived in his primary residence and did honest, productive work (Or hell, even just collect disability, pension, SS, every damn cent the government will give them, I'm all for that!) There would be 3 more houses that families could buy as primary residences (in an ideal world). Yes, I know there is nuance, PE firms like Black Rock and speculators will probably buy some of them up, etc. etc. so you don't need to "actually" me here, just work with me here on the ideal that those houses would be bought fair and square by primary residents.
Home prices would be lower if landlords weren't hoarding them, and 3% + PMI would be lower as a result. It's simple supply and demand, most kids learn about that in Jr. High School. And when certain people hoard supply, there is less supply to meet the demand, therefore higher prices on the demand side. They are sucking value out of society and not giving back or doing an hour of fair work. Providing housing for over-inflated prices without giving equity is not giving back, it's just taking. When landlords talk high and mightily about charging "fair rent prices," that's code for "as much as the market will let me exploit them."
It's easy to see everything as fair when you're out of touch on top of an ivory tower.
"Kings are not a problem, they've lasted for thousands of years."