Housing, like any good or service, is worth as much as two parties consensually agree
Anything else must be backed up by force, at the point of a gun, in the final sense
.
There is always the argument that me owning the house in the first place is theft, no matter how hard I scrimped and saved for years to be able to buy it
Certainly there is a reality here- I mean, there are more people that want to live on the beach than there is beach- and that’s before we factor in wildlife and public access- so we do probably need some way to decide who actually gets to live in a place or prevent people from tearing down all the crops you grew last season to build their dirt bike track- and money is a slightly more civilized although not really more fair way to handle that than the classic “whoever can take it and hold on to it can do what they want..” and certainly more conducive to long term stability and development of communities etc.
so I’ll say there’s truth there.
The flip side comes in when we look at it this way- the fact you were able to string and save and buy a property to rent already means you have more wealth than someone who couldn’t do it. It doesn’t matter how much you save unless you gamble your life savings or get super lucky- if you make $20k a year you aren’t going to be able to own a home in a major market that’s in the millions of dollars. The property tax could be more than you make in a year.
So if you live somewhere that houses are $200k or some absurdly cheap amount- and someone has to rent because they can’t buy a house… that’s pretty hard up. That’s a $20-40k down payment- the price of a cheap or moderately priced car or… a roofing job on a house. But you need the credit and the mortgage and the property tax and the savings and enough for the down etc etc. so there’s more to wealth than just what you make or what’s in the bank.
Tl:Dr- it’s about exploitation. Real estate shouldn’t be an investment- a profit instrument. People literally need a place to exist- and most places not having a home is illegal and there often aren’t places with capacity for everyone who doesn’t have a place to live. So when someone has enough wealth- wether “rich” or “scrimping” to buy more properties than they can live in, and then turns around and charges more than the cost they are paying to OWN that property and accumulate the credit and asset and tax benefits- and they are generally do this to people with less wealth than them- that’s an exploitive system. The fact that you can pay rent on time for decades- higher rent monthly than a mortgage on the same property would cost-but you aren’t eligible to get a loan to buy that same property is insane.
The fact that you obviously have enough to pay every month and don’t get the tax breaks and don’t get the credit or wealth and are STILL able to manage but are feels unfit to own is a type of gate keeping of wealth. The more money you have the easier it is to make money and the less money you have the harder it becomes. Let’s say, using easy made up numbers- mortgage is $2500 a month and property tax and insurance and let’s include a “cushion” in their for repairs and such. all equal $500. So the landlord is paying $3k a month. So let’s say they rent it for $3500- $500 theoretical profit. They can save that $500 a month while you the renter have $500 less you can save towards a down payment or use to build credit etc. if they rent it at “straight cost plus some upkeep cushion” the land lord still can possibly get tax breaks, use equity, and they are building huge credit as well as being able to later profit from any appreciation in property values- which outside of some few markets…
.. over 30+ years your odds of property selling for less than you paid are generally very low. All those advantages to wealth- for less total cost to the landlord, because you don’t have a choice. You pay what they ask or you are homeless. Where it is very telling is rent fluctuations. Joe buys a house in 1980 for $75k. Jane buys the house next door in 2019 for $700k. Jane will have higher property tax and a higher mortgage most likely- and 1980- 2019 Joe should be paid off most likely and have no mortgage at all. So it costs Joe $1200 a month to own the house and it costs Jane $4500 a month- but 9/10 times if Jane rents her home for $5k because her costs are higher- Joe is going to rent for $5k or close to. Joe is making a disgusting amount of profit because… he was born first?
So that’s sort of it in a nutshell- I mean- if you try to sell bottled water and food for 200-400% mark ups after a disaster or amidst a war- if you’re caught you go to jail. That’s profiteering. As a species we have this general moral idea that taking advantage of people having no other options and limit supplies of essential human needs is wrong. We apply that inconsistently- nestle or anyone with the money and connections can buy all the fresh water in an entire country and sell it back at 600%+ and a person that’s owned property since 1970 or had it handed through family can charge as much as they want to allow another human who needs a place to exist to live in the place the landlord isn’t using… and that’s sort of wrong isn’t it?
It’s wrong that a person can literally own more homes than they can live in while someone else cannot even own a si for home because there aren’t enough for everyone? That’s kindergarten stuff- things we’d teach kids are “wrong-“ if there are 30 pencils and 30 kids and one kid gets there first and takes all the pencils because they want them or like switching pencils as they write or want to charge the other kids who either must rent the pencil or fail the class- we wouldn’t encourage that child and say how rightly capitalist they are- we’d tell them that isn’t right and it isn’t ok and they can’t do it.
It’s wrong because there isn’t “homestead-“ it isn’t like you can say “well- there isn’t anything on this land so I’ll build here and now it’s mine.” It isn’t like if you can’t afford to live where the houses are $3 million or $1 million or $200k or whatever that there’s a pace to go and they’ll give you a place where you can make your home somewhere less desirable.
There aren’t any (legal/humane) options- if you can’t afford a home you must rent. If you can’t afford to rent you must stay with someone. If you have no one to stay with you must go to a temporary shelter. If you can’t get into a shelter you must be unhomed- and each “step down” Carrie’s increasing hurdles and built in set backs to make it more difficult to get to the step above. It’s generally more expensive and you accumulate less wealth renting than owning. Staying with someone generally brings instabilities that make it harder to build towards rental. Being in a shelter or without home make it harder to do the basic things to get or keep employment and conduct business- getting mail, having access to hygiene and grooming etc etc. theft and loss and debts and lack of options and more costly alternatives for those without wealth and then tickets and fines and prison sentences and increased vulnerability to crime etc etc.
So aspects make practical sense. We can’t have billion dollar high rises if the person building it knows that anyone can just take any empty space they want and use it for free off their billion dollar investment. You can’t have a secure and clean home if anyone can come use your pool when they like or lounge in your yard. That’s just reality- but the system we is not too far removed from the age of landed gentry and lords and such- serfs who live on their land and contribute to their wealth while struggling to get by. And no- landlords aren’t all “rich people” on their yachts- but that’s exactly it- it shows how messed up the system is. Everyone preying on whoever has it worse to try and get by or keep what extras they have in life. Everyone chasing similar dreams of security and comfort and family and such- while holding others down to try and get their piece because that’s how the system is built. We call it barbaric and wrong when someone takes what they want from anyone who’s
Ass they can kick. “Might makes right” is a sentiment society frowns on along with violence. It’s morally wrong to have a world where I could go take my neighbors house by threat of force because he’s a tiny little wimp- but… if that tiny wimp has money and a good job etc and makes 4x my salary or more and there’s nothing I can do in a wealth “fight” against him- he can have whatever he wants and I have to eat shit? Think about that. If we determined property by who could kick who’s ass and one gang or one guy held a bunch of houses and told all the “weaker” people they could live there if they paid him 30% or more of their earnings every month- we’d call that person a bully or a criminal. So why is it ok that you are economically bigger and stronger so you’re going to do the same thing because we just changed the rules from who is the stronger fighter to who is stronger in wealth?
Anything else must be backed up by force, at the point of a gun, in the final sense
.
There is always the argument that me owning the house in the first place is theft, no matter how hard I scrimped and saved for years to be able to buy it
so I’ll say there’s truth there.
So if you live somewhere that houses are $200k or some absurdly cheap amount- and someone has to rent because they can’t buy a house… that’s pretty hard up. That’s a $20-40k down payment- the price of a cheap or moderately priced car or… a roofing job on a house. But you need the credit and the mortgage and the property tax and the savings and enough for the down etc etc. so there’s more to wealth than just what you make or what’s in the bank.
It’s wrong because there isn’t “homestead-“ it isn’t like you can say “well- there isn’t anything on this land so I’ll build here and now it’s mine.” It isn’t like if you can’t afford to live where the houses are $3 million or $1 million or $200k or whatever that there’s a pace to go and they’ll give you a place where you can make your home somewhere less desirable.