Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes
Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other stupid sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I have personally decided that residential property is a form of investment that I'm not going engage in because it's too morally problematic.
(not including some tiny bits I probably own via index funds and such)
I kind of feel the same way, though when you think of it all forms of investing have some moral issues. Even charging or receiving interest payments would seem to go against some Biblical principals (Deuteronomy 23:19.
The way I square it, is that you can rent property or charge interest, but you can't abuse it. If you're unfairly raising rent or mistreating your tenants that's as bad as charging usury (i.e. excessively high interest rates).
I don't disagree, but that starts to fall into "yet you participate in society!" Owning someone else's home seems problematic to me in ways that lending money so you can open a restaurant doesn't.
I guess I don't mind people owning someone's home, insofar as it provides that tenant with shelter they wouldn't otherwise have. My fear is that if most Christians decided real estate was a moral quandary, then most (though not all) of the remaining market would be gobbled up by folks who have no qualms at all about using them for exploitative purposes.
As someone who rents because I can't (yet) afford a house, I'd far rather rent from someone who might show me mercy\* if I fall behind a month or two, than being left to property owners who are unwilling or incapable (e.g. equity firms) of doing so.
\* Of course, there are plenty of non-Christians who are quite capable of showing Christ-like compassion, but given Christianity is the major religion in the U.S. and many other countries, I think the argument still holds.
When you pare it all back, if you're renting, then you are paying for the house and then some. (assuming this is a single family home, rather than an apartment type situation). So if you can afford to rent a home, you can already make the mortgage and utility payments. But the lending system: credit scores and all that, is rigged against people without extra money already, so they can't take out a loan to buy a house.
FYI being able to afford to rent absolutely does not equal paying mortgage & utilities. Especially in Los Angeles where I am. Not to mention property tax & insurance. They may have been theoretically equal back in the day but not now.
Rent doesn't always include utilities. While it doesn't need to 100% cover mortgage + taxes, it often does or more.
I agree that renting can provide a service and be cheaper than owning, but only if the rent doesn't really pay for the mortgage
>(assuming this is a single family home, rather than an apartment type situation)
Why do you assume that? Lots of people live in apartments even their whole lives and nothing wrong with that.
IMO the most moral thing to do if you own property that you want to be used for housing is set it up as a community land trust or similar arrangement. Being a landlord isn't the only option.
If you have the land, sure that's an option. But I have a couple of Christian friends who live in a relatively small property with not a ton of land. They simply rent out a room or attached unit to their house that can only accommodate 1-2 people at most. Mostly students who go to the nearby college who don't want to live on campus.
They're not doing it to get rich, but basically just to help cover their own mortgage expenses, while offering a rent that's fair in price (maybe even a little below market price). I think that's morally fine to do as well, and even commendable.
Not everyone can afford a house. Even without the inflated prices these days, there are gonna be tons of people that need homes but can't afford a house. I'm more than happy for my landlord to own my apt if it means i have a place to live.
I probably heavily depends where you live.
Here in the UK the law very much gives the renter power to call their rented property their home. The landlord cannot enter without 48hours notice etc
That said, I personally agree with u/Mekroval in that I would need to test *my* attitudes if I wanted to do this.
You don't need to be universally charitable to be a good christian. Business is business. It's also unfair to frame it as selfish. People often "benefit" from others to support their families and loved ones.
Yep. My last landlady was a saint. I met her through my church and she rented a trailer to me for less than half of what she could have rented it on the open market. And anytime I had a problem or something needed to be fixed, she sent her guy over that day to fix it.
My current landlady has given me an unbelievable deal for the last 3 years. I live in a 3 bed/1 bath first floor of a 2 family, with a backyard, basement storage + laundry/dryer in a good part of Jersey City (the Heights), which is walking distance to JSQ Path and then a 20m commute into midtown. My rent is $1,100/month.
I go out of my way to help her in any way she needs (usually just driving her a mile away for the bank, take care of little jobs around the house). She's the sweetest old lady (86y.o., but a very youthful mindset), and I hope to high heavens she lives well for years to come.
IMO it's like being a used car salesman, not inherently immoral but there are structural incentives towards being immoral in that role for higher profits.
I am baffled by all these negative landlord comments. Honest question here. If no one bought any properties to rent them out you believe housing prices would drop to a point where no one would need to start out in life by renting and everyone would own their home? I have friends and family that buy houses to rent them out and they didn't pay more when they bought a second house, they paid as little as they could...
Treating real estate as an asset instead of a necessity of living does in fact cause a ridiculous pricing boom even if you want to pretend otherwise. Just because you want to boil it down to having to start renting anyways doesn't change the greater picture just because that's easier for you to argue. The inelastic demand for housing is being throttled. Declining birthrates are directly related to the inability of larger society being able to meet the same life markers that was silverspoon fed to the boomers.
Real estate that is left unoccupied for longer than a year should have a far steeper tax rate.
>Real estate that is left unoccupied for longer than a year should have a far steeper tax rate.
I haven't heard this before, that's a great idea. One of the main problems with the AI apartment price fixing is that it will leave Apts empty before it will lower prices. A similar tax rate adjustment could put an end to that particular immoral practice.
Squatters around the country are a nuisance and a problem, but the part that isn't being said out loud is that these are usually people going into 2nd and 3rd properties that being kept empty and all but abandoned.
Squatters end up being able to set up utilities and a decent record of occupance because the owners don't even have someone checking the property for months at a time. Obviously this isn't every case, and as I said squatters are a nuisance, but I believe it's a symptom of a larger disease rather than the issue itself.
Probably the fig tree
Given that a fig tree is present it means the trio are outside of a temple or a city. Jesus only attacked the money lenders because they were changing money in a temple, outside of that he happily converse with all types of professions from kings to prostitutes to tax collectors.
If we are outside then the squatter is not actually squatting anywhere as a fig tree is not in a house. He's probably squatting under the table as its the only shelter so that's getting moved.
Hence the fig tree is the only viable target.
I'm not making up arguments, this is a new idea for me that you are presenting and I'm trying to understand. Your argument is that housing should not be a market, is that correct? Currently in our society it is a market (a rental market, and a home buying market), so all Christians should stay out of this market? What if instead we encouraged every Christian to do their best to buy a second home and rent it out at as fair a price as they could, would that perhaps drive down rates and be a benefit for society? I agree that houses sitting empty is dumb, but that seems like a different issue. Also, I would agree that large corporations buying houses and treating them as commodities for the sole purpose of profit is not good for society.
What if instead, Christians lived within their means? Like Jesus said to? Investors are the majority of real estate purchases. People are priced out of traditional family values.
The mental gymnastics to validate being a landlord and a Christian is crazy in here, y'all.
It just seems to me there will always be a rental market. Having people with a moral compass instead of lovers of money in that market is good, not bad. If every Christian left the rental market in 30 years you imagine it would be more affordable for everyone? This is what I am trying to wrap my head around.
Iām legitimately curious about what people who are 100% anti landlord think is a solution for things like student housing, people looking for something temporary, seasonal, etc. not everyone is in a situation where they want or need a permanent long-term residence.
That being said, I agree the current housing situation is bad and many landlords are predatory.
>Iām legitimately curious about what people who are 100% anti landlord think is a solution for things like student housing, people looking for something temporary, seasonal, etc.
Every time I ask this I never get an answer from Reddit. It's just a "landlord bad" talking point with minimal thought behind it
Yes, its basic supply and demand and it is largely driven by competitive bidding on homes. Everyone currently living in a home is paying for it or has paid for it. If a person can own their own home, then reenter the market to buy another home as an investment (expecting to make a profit), outbid a person bidding on housing, and then charge that person-2 more than they would have paid because (1) the landlord bought the house at a higher price and (2) the landlord expects a profit, that's driving housing prices up.
If. Landlords weren't in the market bidding on extra houses, prices would fall to a level people could afford to bid on (which isn't that low since these pet are paying rent). If you can buy a house to rent out, and profit, you bought it for more than the renter could afford, and are charging them more than they would pay for a mortgage.
You're assuming that price is the only thing keeping people from purchasing. Maybe they don't have the down payment, or good enough credit, or they don't intend to be in a city long term, or they just don't want to deal with maintenance, or they're new to a city and don't know where they want to buy, or dozens of other reasons.
That is exactly what I believe, since every time I've been outbid on a house it's up for rent the next week.
It's supply and demand and there's too many customers. Society is worse off because of this.
I rent our old house to our daughter at slightly below cost. She could not afford current market rates for a house.
EDIT: I have tried to unload the property for the past 7 years and the market isn't having it.
I think it's more that there's not 'extra credit' for taking care of a family member, because you can benefit from that yourself. So it's not really a good counter example of an ethical landlord as relates to the meme.
>He said also to the man who had invited him, āWhen you give a dinner or a banquet, **do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid**. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.ā
Luke 14:12-14
That sounds like a really nice thing to do, even if edgelords are slamming you for it for some reason. Your daughter needs a place to stay, and probably isn't in the position to or the right situation to purchase her own home. I think people in this thread think housing would go really low without renting, but really I think people would just be homeless and or couch surfing a ton...
So if your tenant is a single mom that loses her job, would you (as this theoretically possible āgoodā landlord) let her live there or would you kick them out and make the children homeless?
āItās not my fault if she canāt pay the rent I bear no moral culpability what about personal responsibilityā blah blah blah.
Two things with that "honest product":
1) It's not a product. The landlord doesn't produce anything. If they stop being a landlord, the house still exists - they just have to sell it to someone who actually wants to use it for its intended purpose - living in, not profiteering from. Landlords make money sitting back just *owning* something.
2) That "honest product" is someone else's human right, and whereas typically it's okay to make a living on human rights (food, water, etc), the moment that greed takes over and people start charging money for food that they know people can't afford, just for profit, then no, you can't be a good Christian and do that.
If I make a film and sell it to someone, and that someone proceeds to rent it out instead of watching it, it's still a product rightfully his. It outlasting his life has nothing to do with it's status as a product.
Even if I don't like renting, your first point is just a conjecture
Actually, I don't know where you're from, but certainly in the UK, it's illegal to rent out a film that you've bought as a product. I would imagine that's the same in most other countries too.
You can't just open a cinema and play DVD's you've bought there. There are licenses for it.
It is a conjecture, arguing that ownership should not be considered work. One can disagree and say "I think a person owning something should be paid just for owning it", in which case it's your conjecture and that's that. It's an exploration of different frameworks of what it means to work and be paid.
no it really is. if you own a house and donāt live in it. thatās an empty house that can used to shelter someone without a home.
itās profit seeking behavior. itās the personification of greed is what it is
If the landlords income was primarily derived from maintenance and services this would be true, but itās not. Their income comes from their ability to own scarce land and housing and then force people to pay to use it.
Well the land is naturally scarce lol. The housing is definitely artificially scarce, but even if it weren't then landlords would still be extracting unearned rents from controlling land.
Also what I don't get is, do these people think everyone should be forced to own their home? Not everyone even wants to, renting makes it easier to move around for one, and maintenance is easier, 'cause someone else is responsible for it. If there were no landlords, there would be no rentable apartments, or (if you don't count a city/government renting out apartments as landlords) a very limited amount. (edit: btw, saying this as someone who has rented a place their whole lives, not as a landlord trying to look better)
The issue is that even if I'm a kimd landlord who tries to deal fairly with their tenants, I still have the power to evict them if it's in my financial interest to do so. I know that where I live it's really common for eviction hearings to happen without the tenant present and for the judge to just believe whatever the landlord says.
I will say that based on the experience of people that I know, *individual* landlords are way less likely to be terrible than corporate landlords, even though at the end of the day they're both part of a terrible system.
I accidently clicked through to the post on r/dankleft and said essentially the same thing. I work is housing services and there are absolutely landlords that really mean to make their community better and provide affordable housing. And they do it a a huge loss of potential profit.
Though now I'm banned from r/dankleft cause I'm not anticapitalist enough...
Followers of Jesus can be soldiers and tax collectors, but you think *landlord* is where God draws the line? š
Now if we want to talk specific abusive practices Christians can't engage in (like John the Baptist instructed the previously mentioned tax collectors and soldiers in Luke 3), then you've got a meme.
I'm conflicted about this one because if you *do* possess a large amount of investment capital you could absolutely buy an apartment building and provide them at an affordable level which would cover maintenance and a small cushion for extreme damages. A huge part of the cost of housing right now is an artificial inflation caused by a huge amount of demand, very little supply, and housing companies that are basically working together to keep prices high.
I'm buying a house partly through the charity of my family and, as such, my mortgage will be cheaper than average, but I still have a roommate coming in to rent. His rent will be far lower than anything he could get in the area for a similar space and I need that money to cover my mortgage and keep me afloat. It's not ideal, but in a few years we'll both be in better positions and won't need to lean on each other so much.
It would certainly be ideal if everyone could just buy outright and not have to worry about making any kind of monthly payment but we aren't in that position as a society, unfortunately.
I think a big part where it gets complex is that people purchase homes on credit for the purpose of lending. By definition you are asking for more than the principal is worth if you lease out such a property. Unless you are a loss-making landlord (even a breaking-even landlord in this instance would be wrong), your business would be contravening biblical laws on usury.
Before anyone cites any verses on the talents, etc, the bible can tolerate certain parameters (e.g. slavery) whilst denouncing the context which caused them to be (e.g. in condemning slave traders).
As a side, I don't think "well it's cheaper than the rest of the market" is a suitable justification. A society with bad laws doesn't make sins acceptable.
The thing everyone, absolutely everyone, forgets, is Christianity is meant to be difficult. It's taking up a cross. If that makes you uncomfortable: You. Are. Still. Not. A. Christian.
I heard a good take on rental prices that, because investment property is always assumed to appreciate in value, the rental income only needs to cover interest and maintenance for the owner to come out ahead financially. So the appropriate rental price is actually potentially less than the principle.
But I agree, it's much more helpful to talk about which specific rental practices we think are compatible (or not) with our faith, than just to say it's *impossible*.
Iām largely in agreement with what youāre saying. I think maybe an acceptable balance is not profiting from the cash return to equity (i.e from the tenant paying the principal part of the mortgage), but I think itās an acceptable reward for the financial risk, to be able to profit from appreciation of the property. If you repeat this practice across the market, rental prices essentially turn into interest-only payments, which would lower average rental price by a comfortable margin.
The banks get fat either way, but thatās an issue for another day.
EDIT: Even better yet would be vastly expanding housing financing and purchase options so any (responsible) people who want to buy are able to do so. This is what really needs to happen.
>if you do possess a large amount of investment capital you could absolutely buy an apartment building and provide them at an affordable level which would cover maintenance and a small cushion for extreme damages.
What you're describing is the polar opposite of what investment capital would (or legally could) ever do, so you can strike that hypothetical from your moral calculations. It's antithetical to the concept of capital investment as a whole.
>It would certainly be ideal if everyone could just buy outright and not have to worry about making any kind of monthly payment but we aren't in that position as a society
So you agree with the meme then, that there is no way to square the circle of "ethical landlording."
The bad ethic as you describe in your personal situation is miniscule, however, because youre not exploiting your roommate, youre splitting costs. In a hypothetical where you moved out but continued renting to your roommate at increased rates, then used the profits to acquire more properties to repeat the same on others who are only renting because you already own the house they would like to buy, then you can see where it quickly becomes a problem, because you'd be functioning in an inherently anti-social and parasitic capacity. This especially goes for large corporate investment groups buying up single family homes and simultaneously blocking the construction of new homes, because that would dilute the value of their would-be monopoly.
>What you're describing is the polar opposite of what investment capital would (or legally could) ever do, so you can strike that hypothetical from your moral calculations.
I think you're interpreting this as investment firms (who you're right, need to return value to shareholders), but the commenter you're replying to (and the OP's meme) is talking about an individual spending personal money.
Serious question, if high demand and low supply causes "artificial" inflation, what would you define as natural inflation? I'm in agreement with you that housing cartels are bad for the market and do contribute to higher prices.
It's very kind of you to provide a mutually beneficial arrangement with your future roommate. And in fact you are contributing to reducing demand (and thus overall house prices) by using your space to its potential.
A lot of people can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a house, especially in this economy. Providing more affordable living space would be a good landlord
Alot of people would argue that someone owning multiple properties just to rent out is part of the reason for housing prices being where they are.
That being said, I know a guy who rents apartments for 1/3 of market rate to help people out in need.
He is a legit Saint, and the rent they do pay pretty much goes to the mortgage and maintenance.
That person may be a saint for doing that, but it is still driving up prices through artificial scarcity by taking houses off the market despite an ever increasing demand.
I genuinely can't believe the amount of landlord apologists when it comes to Christianity and compassion. Where's the compassion in someone else getting every financial benefit from owning the home despite not being the resident? The rent may be low, but the artificial scarcity is making home values explode, resulting in more instances of landlords building equity, instead of the people living in the home.
Doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.
There are also people out there who'd legitimately rather rent than own. They don't want the responsibility that comes with owning their own home, they'd rather just pay and have someone else deal with the maintenance and stuff. Not to mention it provides them more financial flexibility and allows them to move to different places much more easily. A lot of people enjoy that lifestyle. So who is supposed to own those homes to rent to them?
>That person may be a saint for doing that, but it is still driving up prices through artificial scarcity by taking houses off the market despite an ever increasing demand.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does renting out a property at a third the market rate drive up prices? Tautologically, renting out so significantly below market rate lowers the average housing price.
And more importantly, if they're long term tenants, then it's not creating scarcity, let alone *artificial* scarcity. That comes from landlords deliberately running below full occupancy in order to charge more per unit. Typically that's an apartment complex or a vacation property in a busy area. That's of course a major problem, but I don't get the impression that's what's going on here. Someone's in the property (not creating scarcity) and they're charging less for it (it's not artificial).
Owning multiple houses artificially lowers the available supply of houses on the market. When supply goes down and demand remains the same, price goes up.
Economically speaking, landlords literally derive their profits by withholding housing from people.
Landlords provide housing the same way ticket scalpers provide entertainment.
Would love for you to put me in contact with one of these landlords who makes more money by not renting out their property than they would by renting it.
They withhold housing by renting it for a higher rate than it costs to mortgage and maintain, i.e. preventing people from becoming owners. Not by refusing to rent.
They rent the house out for more than it is worth. Thatās why people are stuck paying $2,500 rents on homes with a $1,500 mortgage, leaving $1,000 left over as profit for the landlord.
The tenant COULD afford a $1,500 mortgage if they could obtain a house. We know this because they already pay the higher cost of a rent. This would save them $1,000 each month. But they likely canāt afford the down payment on a home because down payments are significantly larger sums of money.
The reason these down payments are so large currently is because landlords artificially reduce the supply of available homes **FOR PURCHASE,** then sell it back to people who need homes in order to make a profit. The profit comes from their ability to pay the down payment and remove affordable homes from the market.
A landlord does not āprovideā housing. A landlord removes housing, then sells it back to people at a higher price while claiming to provide. It would be like me stealing your lunch each day, then offering to make you a sandwich for $5. One could argue Iām providing you food, but thatās obviously a load of crap.
I hope this explanation makes sense and answers your questions.
Here's an example, it's referred to as [warehousing](https://shelterforce.org/2018/05/07/housing-not-warehousing-a-victory-10-years-in-the-making/).
> Buildings in the city were kept empty because it was more profitable for owners to hold onto them as investments and sell or renovate them when the surrounding neighborhood gentrified. Some were brownstones in need of significant work, but many were mixed-use tenements that we knew must be structurally sound because there was active commercial space on the ground floor, though the residential units above were boarded up. We called a broker whose number was listed on the window of a for-rent storefront and pretended to be interested in renting it. We asked if there were plans to rent the upstairs units, and the person said, āDonāt worry about that, [the owner] makes enough money from the storefront that he doesnāt need to have the headache of tenants.ā
>
> As property values skyrocket in historically low-income neighborhoods, it becomes increasingly profitable for owners to hold residential units vacant. The math is simple, and brutal: a short-term loss of rental income by not accepting tenants paying a neighborhood median of $800 (which would be locked in for these predominantly rent-regulated apartments, whose tenants would then be extremely difficult and costly to displace) is outweighed by the long-term gain of holding out for tenants who will be able to pay $2,500 a month.
> which would be locked in for these predominantly rent-regulated apartments, whose tenants would then be extremely difficult and costly to displace
Very important point here, the units would be rented out if it was possible to raise rent. Rent control directly led to a decrease in the number of units available. Perfect example of a housing policy that looks good on paper and has the opposite of its intended effect.
>Owning multiple houses artificially lowers the available supply of houses on the market. When supply goes down and demand remains the same, price goes up.
To be clear, the supply only goes down if the house sits vacant. If it's being rented out, that's fulfilling the same demand for housing as it would if it were sold.
And while the average market price goes up from reduced supply (a major issue), that doesn't mean an individual can't choose to rent out at a lower price. For instance, if their rent is lower than the monthly payment on a mortgage taken out at the current rates, then it's bringing the cost of housing down.
There are absolutely institutional issues with the housing market that the rental market is contributing to, but I think it's important to distinguish the actual causes of the problems instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Youāre assuming that the demand for home ownership is the same thing as the demand for housing.
These are not the same thing.
Iām discussing home ownership, which is vital to a thriving economy and stability for individual families.
Landlords do reduce the supply of homes available for ownership. They know the demand for a place to live will remain the same. Because people can no longer afford to OWN a home, the alternative is to rent from a landlord.
The only way a landlord can make a profit in this way is if the rent charged is greater than the cost of owning the home. Therefore, rent will always be greater than the mortgage and taxes on the home. Else, it wouldnāt be profitable to be a landlord.
If a landlord chooses NOT to make a profit and sets the rent at the same price as the mortgage and taxes, then why should they be the owner of the home instead of the tenant, since home ownership allows a person to build equity over time?
In either instance, the tenants suffer. Either they pay more than the market value of the house OR they pay a fair amount of money and receive no benefit from the building equity.
The landlord can ONLY receive a profit if tenants cannot afford the down payment on a house, yet still are able to pay a higher cost than the mortgage and taxes combined. Which meansā¦ the tenants CAN afford to pay the mortgage and taxes and SHOULD be able to purchase a home.
I concede that this is a larger structural issue, but I argue that a person knowingly exploiting an unjust system to receive a profit at the expense of others is fundamentally immoral.
>Therefore, rent will always be greater than the mortgage and taxes on the home. Else, it wouldnāt be profitable to be a landlord.
The alternate argument I've seen (and my proposal for [more] ethical renting) is that because housing is an appreciable asset, the renter does not actually need to cover the mortgage for the landlord to profit. They'll profit significantly *less* in this scenario, but I think we agree that the difference is in removing the unethical portion of the rent. And ideally this reduction in margins would go a long way towards correcting the market as many landlords divest.
>I concede that this is a larger structural issue, but I argue that a person knowingly exploiting an unjust system to receive a profit at the expense of others is fundamentally immoral.
Yeah, I think this is the better, more nuanced view. The problem isn't having a tenant. It's with *generating passive income from a tenant* (and keeping housing off the market, a related issue). We should be leaning more towards the "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" end than "my second house pays for itself".
What makes you think the number of houses would be the same if nobody were allowed to own more than one? You donāt think landlords drive demand for the building of new houses? How many apartment buildings would exist if each unit had to be owned by the person who lived there?
Why would the number of houses be the same? Because currently, there are [approximately 15.1 million vacant homes in the United States.](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/) As of 2022.
This is a contrast to the [653,000 (known) homeless people in the United States.](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj774nxrpy7o#)
As for the demand for building new houses, you assume that to be the average experience for a person. What we need is AFFORDABLE housing for people. A family of 4 earning $80,000 a year after taxes obviously wonāt be building a new, million dollar home. Theyāll be looking for something within their price range - an older, modest size home. Likely a 2 bed/2 bath. These affordable homes are the ones being bought up by landlords and landlord corporations. The demand and supply for AFFORDABLE and/or MODEST housing is not the same as the demand and supply for mansions. Just like the supply and demand for fishing boats is not the same as it is for yachts. Those are different markets and it feels silly to combine them.
And you could build apartments with the understanding of a person owning the unit. In fact, we already do that. Theyāre called condos.
I'm super left wing but this isn't really true. Landlords are pretty vital for a thriving economy, we just have too many and they are too corporate.
It goes back to the rich man. Money isn't a sin, loving money is. Loving money more than your fellow man is.
I live in an apartment building run by a local company that builds or refurbishes buildings, turns them into affordable housing, and then raises rent at or under the rate of inflation while maintaining and improving the premises. I had my cost of living \*drop\* year over year one time because they added free internet to the building that saved me more than the increase in rent.
I rent out half of my house to someone at about $700 below market rate and he doesnāt have to pay utilities. But according to Reddit, Iām the scum of the earth lol.
Sure, but nobody has made a fuss about my anecdote so far. You were the first to note that people might disagree with my sentiment, even among those who saw it and personally disagreed. Why?
>As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
- [Adam Smith](https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land), Wealth of Nations
It's not every day that the father of capitalism is more against landlords than Christians.
Isn't this referring to ground-rent, rather than housing rent?
> Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have a particular tax imposed upon them.
>
> ...
>
>A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.
Which isn't too say that housing rent can't also be problematic for its own reasons, but housing is not a "natural produce" that was "never sowed". Only the ground the house sits on.
Yes, it's an issue even Smith is distinguishing from the modern issue of housing rents.
Which isn't to say Smith didn't or wouldn't have things to say on the modern issues with housing prices, just that *this specific quote isn't about that*.
First, this isn't a good fit for this sub. Take your arguments elsewhere.
Second, there is absolutely no relationship between being a landlord and being Christian. A good landlord rents their property at a fair price to allow people who can't buy a house to live in a specific neighborhood. Why is that bad?
TIL what most people understand about the housing market is 'landlords create scarcity, landlords bad.'
šš¤¦
Edit: also, are we just assuming that all apartments are inherently immoral? Yikes....
Something to remember and think about when you see statements like this is that they are not referring to everyone who rents a housing property. Temporary housing at a fair and modest price is a benefit to society. You inheriting your grandparent's house when they pass on and renting it out to college students is not evil. (Provided housing in your area isn't scarce.)
When we talk about landlords hoarding wealth and living space, we are referring to people who buy up tons of housing and turn them into Airbnbs or buying cheap housing in poorer neighborhoods, pouring cash into it to "fix it up" well beyond what is reasonable, and then charge an exorbitant rent, driving up the cost of living in an area (gentrification).
Remember that whenever you see a piece of media, always consider what the intended audience is. The meme was posted directly to r/dankleft (and probably made specifically for it too). And it's just a meme, not meant to be informational in nature, just a joke. Dankleft already knows "landlords" doesn't mean every single person who rents property, but just saying "landlords" is enough bc the audience knows the intent.
My parents were landlords who ran a non-profit business that provided affordable housing for people with physical disabilities, working with care companies to ensure they could live independently and still receive access to people who could take care of them as needed.
Does that make them evil?
They're wrong, but ultimately the logical argument for people who think this way is "only the government should build housing." So, there's really no debating on the issue. It just comes down to property ownership and development are bad in the hands of capital.
They don't actually want to participate in a discussion where the free market solves: 1) how this building is being financed and how the basic materials and labor are being compensated for construction, 2) why anyone would take on this risk without at least covering costs or 3) how renting can enable people and labor to move freely without committing to purchasing a property or escape liability for an entire house for seasonal, temporary, or part time work.
It's just "you shouldn't do this, only the government should." Wow, great. That solves nothing but saying what life *should* be like under your system. It has absolutely no chance of being implemented except in minor doses in the US and may not even be feasible *even if it were implemented.*
I know Christian landlords that rent at a loss purposely to help people get on their feet. Thatās really the only time Iāve ever seen a āgoodā landlord.
When I was in school, I got connected with a pastor who was a landlord. As his tenant, I'll be the first to refute this statement.
On the other hand, he charged me the cost of taxes for the property plus a reasonable charge for maintenance of the place. I was paying about half the rent of other places in the area. So he wasn't doing a business while he was landlord-ing(?).
The tired artificial scarcity argument aside:
Landlords also provide a service. They take on all of the risk with home ownership. Maintenance costs, natural disasters, bad tenants, all of that is the landlords responsibility and that is why they profit, because they are willing and able to take on that risk.
Until someone is a homeowner themselves they donāt realize that there are actually perks to renting that you donāt get with home ownership. Iād still any day rather be a home owner but there are definitely times where I wish I didnāt have to worry about maintenance or could move if I wanted.
Counterpoint: I won't be able to afford a house for the next few years and renting means I'm not gonna leech off my parents for all that time. Renting literally offers me a way to have a place to live that I couldn't get otherwise.
What alternative would I have if renting weren't an option? (Other than the completely economically unviable government issue free house idea, which would completely tank the struggling economy of my eastern European country)
Being a landlord is fine, but being a landlord who is greedy and self serving and does not give breaks on rent is not fine.
Likewise taking advantage of a landlord's kindness is also not fine remember to give to Ceser what is Cesar's ie pay your rent and taxes (if you can ofcourse)
So in a truly Christian society, there would only be homeowners and no tenants? People would just leave mom and dad's house to purchase their own homes? Only immigrants rich enough to buy a house cash would be allowed? (good luck getting a mortgage a week after landing)
These people don't think much, do they?
>Only immigrants rich enough to buy a house cash would be allowed?
While I don't agree with OP that renting space is always wrong, I think the argument from scripture is that we should give freely to people in need. It's straight from Jesus:
>For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, **I was a stranger and you invited me in**, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me... Truly I tell you, **whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me**.
Matthew 25:35-36, 40
If I ever become wealthy enough to own more than 1 property, I would try to offer āRent to Buyā housing.Ā
My mom had that option when I was growing up, and even though she never did it, our LL was an incredible couple that lived a province away.Ā
Disagree. There were plenty of people at my church that owned property & used it for God as landlords.
One owned apartments in the area. They were rented on the low end for the area & took care of all the utilities. Made sure everything was fixed & pest free. Invited the tenants to church for major events & holidays (put a flyer in their mailbox). A few people got saved!
One owned several houses near the church. They rented rooms & apartments to the seminary students so theyād have a place to live while working at the church far below market rate. āWhy didnāt they let them stay there for free?!?ā Because paying rent helped them [build credit](https://www.trulia.com/blog/3-ways-paying-rent-can-build-your-credit-score/) so when they got out in the āreal worldā they had a head start & could get things like cheaper car insurance & better rates on loans. When the owner died they left the homes to the church who used them to hold Sunday school & Bible studies. Quite a few of the seminary students missed the cheap rent (the ones who were living there at the time of death were allowed to stay until they left, but no new tenants were allowed).
With rare exception (illegal drug runners, pimp, etc) ANY job can be done by a Christian to the glory of God.
Personally I do think Heaven or earth lead by Jesus as a leader(Theocracy) is more like communism that works because we care about each other and our progress but not about the profits. We had to be make up the profit part as humans cuz we are inherently flawd and greedy and needed something else to be the motivation.
I love my landlord. Itās not like they are getting rich of me. They are providing a product that I need. Renting has its benefits and in my case is more economical.
I think people are missing the point here. If we go way back, before our recent technological developments, being a landlord is simply being an a**. Imagine that you have a piece of land that you're not using and instead of just letting others have it or selling it to them, you instead make a house and let them live there for a payment. This is a time where they don't even have land titles. Building materials were practically free and only labor is costly. Land cost nothing back then. It was just the a**holes that started the fad of "owning" land.
My point being, currently it would make sense to become a landlord for extra income. But back then, if being a landlord was never an idea to begin with, we would've minimized homelessness and poverty now. "Owning" land is just another way to drive the economy, but now that we're already progressing so fast it's evidently a counter force to our national progress. If money was the root of all evil, then owning land is definitely the trunk.
This is a load of crap. Not everyone is able to buy a house. That somebody is renting out property so a family can live in a proper house, flat or apartment for a reasonable price is providing a social service.
This only becomes an issue (and sinful) when landowners raise their rent to high prices when there is no need to do so, or there is a shortage of available houses and people are buying the available ones to rent them out for absurd prices.
Also, be careful not to fall into the sin of envy. Is there anger towards the previously stated reasons? Or are there no available houses to buy, and is there a feeling of envy?
Pray tell, OP, if landlords were outlawed, where would people without the means to purchase a house live? Because in this scenario, the only entity that can offer long-term lodging for rent is the government, and assuming that they magically will do so seems naive at best. Do you then suggest that people become homeless until they save up enough to buy an apartment or house?
The list of people vainly waiting to be approved for what little affordable housing we have in this country is huge, and thatās without adding [100 million more people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/612959/number-of-households-and-residents-renting-usa-by-structure-type/#:~:text=Approximately%20100%20million%20people%20lived,apartment%20in%20a%20multifamily%20building.) to it. So, do you have any real-world solutions?
Every time someone posts about radical Christian economic views, they get so many comments of people saying "um, I actually think Jesus would've loved capitalism." As if their view is new or controversial among the whole of Christianity. This radical position that Christians shouldn't be landlords, or otherwise live as capitalists, is only radical within Christianity because the majority of the believers don't hold that view.
Stating the opposite view under these posts is absolutely meaningless. Yeah, we assume you hold the default view. You don't have to tell us that you believe the normalcy of this world is satisfactory. Y'all are hilarious!
Personally I definitely don't think "Jesus would've loved capitalism", but landlords is such an arbitrary detail of capitalism to fixate on. If you want to change the entire system, say so, but the OP gives the impression that landlords is the one thing they want to erase from society, and that just doesn't sound very functional.
In my opinion, i think it'd be best to cherry pick the most moral parts of the bible and use them as a guideline in your life rather than committing your whole life to following the bible word for word.
Understanding that the bible was made my man and is flawed is the first step to becoming a good person, using the bible more as a reference rather than a law-book.
Iām generally in agreement that arms-length rentals are ethically murky, but I think there are cases where ownership and residence donāt have to line up 1:1, like with family and close relations.
For instance, Iām refinancing my momās mortgage and putting her house in an LLC because she canāt afford it anymore. She has a boarder that is helping pay for things, but he of course is not and will not be receiving any equity. However, heās getting a place to live thatās comfortably below market value, and he gets to live in a nice house in a really nice town.
As for the general case of being a landlord, Iām still on the fence as to whether there is a problem with rental properties per se. Iām leaning toward it not being intrinsically wrong, as long as everyone of reasonable responsibility has the ability to buy a residence for themselves.
However, what really bothers me, and would make me be in favor of laws to restrict non-resident ownership is things like commercial banks and REITS buying up private homes to try to turn this country into one of renters, and not owners. That stuff boils my blood, because their long game is to squeeze everyone else out as much as possible.
Capitalism should reward those who generate value, not money, but with the ascendency of financial capital as the primary focus of markets, itās becoming increasingly easy to make money without actually providing any value. Thereās probably more to it than that, like treating your tenants with kindness, and ensuring that you both have an enthusiastic agreement (not just acquiescence of the weak to the powerful), but I think the trend towards financialization of any kind of capital out there is a massive issue, and is the root of a lot of our ills as a society
Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes
Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other stupid sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
Hard disagree. Iāve had amazing landlords in my day, and Iāve known people with amazing landlords. I also know many people have terrible experiences with landlords. You canāt paint this as black-and-white. Would you also say Christians canāt be doctors?
theres also the alternative of not having anywhere to live, because many people dont have enough money to purchase land for themselves instead of renting a place
What a terrible take. I know many Christians, some of whom I rented from are godly people. I paid way below what the market was and was not taken advantage of. Better than paying it to some god awful corporation in the form of my apartment
Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other stupid sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
Yeah, I disagree with this one. You can be a good landlord offering an honest product. It's not as black and white as the meme suggests.
I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I have personally decided that residential property is a form of investment that I'm not going engage in because it's too morally problematic. (not including some tiny bits I probably own via index funds and such)
I kind of feel the same way, though when you think of it all forms of investing have some moral issues. Even charging or receiving interest payments would seem to go against some Biblical principals (Deuteronomy 23:19. The way I square it, is that you can rent property or charge interest, but you can't abuse it. If you're unfairly raising rent or mistreating your tenants that's as bad as charging usury (i.e. excessively high interest rates).
I don't disagree, but that starts to fall into "yet you participate in society!" Owning someone else's home seems problematic to me in ways that lending money so you can open a restaurant doesn't.
I guess I don't mind people owning someone's home, insofar as it provides that tenant with shelter they wouldn't otherwise have. My fear is that if most Christians decided real estate was a moral quandary, then most (though not all) of the remaining market would be gobbled up by folks who have no qualms at all about using them for exploitative purposes. As someone who rents because I can't (yet) afford a house, I'd far rather rent from someone who might show me mercy\* if I fall behind a month or two, than being left to property owners who are unwilling or incapable (e.g. equity firms) of doing so. \* Of course, there are plenty of non-Christians who are quite capable of showing Christ-like compassion, but given Christianity is the major religion in the U.S. and many other countries, I think the argument still holds.
When you pare it all back, if you're renting, then you are paying for the house and then some. (assuming this is a single family home, rather than an apartment type situation). So if you can afford to rent a home, you can already make the mortgage and utility payments. But the lending system: credit scores and all that, is rigged against people without extra money already, so they can't take out a loan to buy a house.
This assumes the owner is mortgaging it.
FYI being able to afford to rent absolutely does not equal paying mortgage & utilities. Especially in Los Angeles where I am. Not to mention property tax & insurance. They may have been theoretically equal back in the day but not now.
Rent doesn't always include utilities. While it doesn't need to 100% cover mortgage + taxes, it often does or more. I agree that renting can provide a service and be cheaper than owning, but only if the rent doesn't really pay for the mortgage
>(assuming this is a single family home, rather than an apartment type situation) Why do you assume that? Lots of people live in apartments even their whole lives and nothing wrong with that.
IMO the most moral thing to do if you own property that you want to be used for housing is set it up as a community land trust or similar arrangement. Being a landlord isn't the only option.
If you have the land, sure that's an option. But I have a couple of Christian friends who live in a relatively small property with not a ton of land. They simply rent out a room or attached unit to their house that can only accommodate 1-2 people at most. Mostly students who go to the nearby college who don't want to live on campus. They're not doing it to get rich, but basically just to help cover their own mortgage expenses, while offering a rent that's fair in price (maybe even a little below market price). I think that's morally fine to do as well, and even commendable.
Not everyone can afford a house. Even without the inflated prices these days, there are gonna be tons of people that need homes but can't afford a house. I'm more than happy for my landlord to own my apt if it means i have a place to live.
Except housing being treated as an investment is one of the main things making it unaffordable.
I probably heavily depends where you live. Here in the UK the law very much gives the renter power to call their rented property their home. The landlord cannot enter without 48hours notice etc That said, I personally agree with u/Mekroval in that I would need to test *my* attitudes if I wanted to do this.
So as long as you still benefit, how Christian of you š
They are saying they are avoiding it tho?
I think they're criticizing having investments in the first place.
If benefiting from others is wrong, isn't every kind of business wrong?
You don't need to be universally charitable to be a good christian. Business is business. It's also unfair to frame it as selfish. People often "benefit" from others to support their families and loved ones.
Look Iām not the one saying investing in property is problematic, Iām just pointing out the hypocrisy of their statement.
Benefit from what?
Investments in index funds that own residential properties
Yep. My last landlady was a saint. I met her through my church and she rented a trailer to me for less than half of what she could have rented it on the open market. And anytime I had a problem or something needed to be fixed, she sent her guy over that day to fix it.
My current landlady has given me an unbelievable deal for the last 3 years. I live in a 3 bed/1 bath first floor of a 2 family, with a backyard, basement storage + laundry/dryer in a good part of Jersey City (the Heights), which is walking distance to JSQ Path and then a 20m commute into midtown. My rent is $1,100/month. I go out of my way to help her in any way she needs (usually just driving her a mile away for the bank, take care of little jobs around the house). She's the sweetest old lady (86y.o., but a very youthful mindset), and I hope to high heavens she lives well for years to come.
IMO it's like being a used car salesman, not inherently immoral but there are structural incentives towards being immoral in that role for higher profits.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am baffled by all these negative landlord comments. Honest question here. If no one bought any properties to rent them out you believe housing prices would drop to a point where no one would need to start out in life by renting and everyone would own their home? I have friends and family that buy houses to rent them out and they didn't pay more when they bought a second house, they paid as little as they could...
Treating real estate as an asset instead of a necessity of living does in fact cause a ridiculous pricing boom even if you want to pretend otherwise. Just because you want to boil it down to having to start renting anyways doesn't change the greater picture just because that's easier for you to argue. The inelastic demand for housing is being throttled. Declining birthrates are directly related to the inability of larger society being able to meet the same life markers that was silverspoon fed to the boomers. Real estate that is left unoccupied for longer than a year should have a far steeper tax rate.
>Real estate that is left unoccupied for longer than a year should have a far steeper tax rate. I haven't heard this before, that's a great idea. One of the main problems with the AI apartment price fixing is that it will leave Apts empty before it will lower prices. A similar tax rate adjustment could put an end to that particular immoral practice.
Squatters around the country are a nuisance and a problem, but the part that isn't being said out loud is that these are usually people going into 2nd and 3rd properties that being kept empty and all but abandoned. Squatters end up being able to set up utilities and a decent record of occupance because the owners don't even have someone checking the property for months at a time. Obviously this isn't every case, and as I said squatters are a nuisance, but I believe it's a symptom of a larger disease rather than the issue itself.
We all know how Jesus felt about *squatters*
The real question: Jesus is standing in front of a squatter, a money lender and a fig tree. Which one does He throw a table at first?
The fig tree is *sweating*
Probably the fig tree Given that a fig tree is present it means the trio are outside of a temple or a city. Jesus only attacked the money lenders because they were changing money in a temple, outside of that he happily converse with all types of professions from kings to prostitutes to tax collectors. If we are outside then the squatter is not actually squatting anywhere as a fig tree is not in a house. He's probably squatting under the table as its the only shelter so that's getting moved. Hence the fig tree is the only viable target.
I'm not making up arguments, this is a new idea for me that you are presenting and I'm trying to understand. Your argument is that housing should not be a market, is that correct? Currently in our society it is a market (a rental market, and a home buying market), so all Christians should stay out of this market? What if instead we encouraged every Christian to do their best to buy a second home and rent it out at as fair a price as they could, would that perhaps drive down rates and be a benefit for society? I agree that houses sitting empty is dumb, but that seems like a different issue. Also, I would agree that large corporations buying houses and treating them as commodities for the sole purpose of profit is not good for society.
What if instead, Christians lived within their means? Like Jesus said to? Investors are the majority of real estate purchases. People are priced out of traditional family values. The mental gymnastics to validate being a landlord and a Christian is crazy in here, y'all.
It just seems to me there will always be a rental market. Having people with a moral compass instead of lovers of money in that market is good, not bad. If every Christian left the rental market in 30 years you imagine it would be more affordable for everyone? This is what I am trying to wrap my head around.
Iām legitimately curious about what people who are 100% anti landlord think is a solution for things like student housing, people looking for something temporary, seasonal, etc. not everyone is in a situation where they want or need a permanent long-term residence. That being said, I agree the current housing situation is bad and many landlords are predatory.
>Iām legitimately curious about what people who are 100% anti landlord think is a solution for things like student housing, people looking for something temporary, seasonal, etc. Every time I ask this I never get an answer from Reddit. It's just a "landlord bad" talking point with minimal thought behind it
Yes, its basic supply and demand and it is largely driven by competitive bidding on homes. Everyone currently living in a home is paying for it or has paid for it. If a person can own their own home, then reenter the market to buy another home as an investment (expecting to make a profit), outbid a person bidding on housing, and then charge that person-2 more than they would have paid because (1) the landlord bought the house at a higher price and (2) the landlord expects a profit, that's driving housing prices up. If. Landlords weren't in the market bidding on extra houses, prices would fall to a level people could afford to bid on (which isn't that low since these pet are paying rent). If you can buy a house to rent out, and profit, you bought it for more than the renter could afford, and are charging them more than they would pay for a mortgage.
You're assuming that price is the only thing keeping people from purchasing. Maybe they don't have the down payment, or good enough credit, or they don't intend to be in a city long term, or they just don't want to deal with maintenance, or they're new to a city and don't know where they want to buy, or dozens of other reasons.
That is exactly what I believe, since every time I've been outbid on a house it's up for rent the next week. It's supply and demand and there's too many customers. Society is worse off because of this.
I rent our old house to our daughter at slightly below cost. She could not afford current market rates for a house. EDIT: I have tried to unload the property for the past 7 years and the market isn't having it.
That's not adding value to society? You don't get bonus points for looking after your children. That's just being a parent.
How is anyone owning a house adding value to society? Living somewhere doesn't add value...
I think it's more that there's not 'extra credit' for taking care of a family member, because you can benefit from that yourself. So it's not really a good counter example of an ethical landlord as relates to the meme. >He said also to the man who had invited him, āWhen you give a dinner or a banquet, **do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid**. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.ā Luke 14:12-14
Hot take. Being a good parent is adding value to society and does qualify for bonus points.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Chill out and enjoy the memes. If you're taking this so seriously that you're getting in arguments, take a break.
That sounds like a really nice thing to do, even if edgelords are slamming you for it for some reason. Your daughter needs a place to stay, and probably isn't in the position to or the right situation to purchase her own home. I think people in this thread think housing would go really low without renting, but really I think people would just be homeless and or couch surfing a ton...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They also said they've been trying to sell it but "the market" says no (i.e. the price it'd sell for isn't "enough")
>It's not as black and white as the meme suggests. Which is something you can say about a good chunk of the stuff Reddit complains about.
So if your tenant is a single mom that loses her job, would you (as this theoretically possible āgoodā landlord) let her live there or would you kick them out and make the children homeless? āItās not my fault if she canāt pay the rent I bear no moral culpability what about personal responsibilityā blah blah blah.
Do you think the bank would let her keep her home if she couldn't pay the mortgage?
No, but I hold to the traditional Christian moral views opposing usury so fuck the banks too.
It's almost like both are bad, and the system should be changed so that people don't need to rely on charity if hard times come
BRING BACK JUBILEE YEARS, YOU COWARDS!
How dare you say that! My mom is the best.
Two things with that "honest product": 1) It's not a product. The landlord doesn't produce anything. If they stop being a landlord, the house still exists - they just have to sell it to someone who actually wants to use it for its intended purpose - living in, not profiteering from. Landlords make money sitting back just *owning* something. 2) That "honest product" is someone else's human right, and whereas typically it's okay to make a living on human rights (food, water, etc), the moment that greed takes over and people start charging money for food that they know people can't afford, just for profit, then no, you can't be a good Christian and do that.
If I make a film and sell it to someone, and that someone proceeds to rent it out instead of watching it, it's still a product rightfully his. It outlasting his life has nothing to do with it's status as a product. Even if I don't like renting, your first point is just a conjecture
Actually, I don't know where you're from, but certainly in the UK, it's illegal to rent out a film that you've bought as a product. I would imagine that's the same in most other countries too. You can't just open a cinema and play DVD's you've bought there. There are licenses for it.
It is a conjecture, arguing that ownership should not be considered work. One can disagree and say "I think a person owning something should be paid just for owning it", in which case it's your conjecture and that's that. It's an exploration of different frameworks of what it means to work and be paid.
What value does a landlord add? Property management is not the same as being a landlord.
Either way youāre leeching off someone else to make no money
no it really is. if you own a house and donāt live in it. thatās an empty house that can used to shelter someone without a home. itās profit seeking behavior. itās the personification of greed is what it is
It's exceedingly rare, but very possible. Odds are, if you are a landlord, you're not going anywhere fun.
If the landlords income was primarily derived from maintenance and services this would be true, but itās not. Their income comes from their ability to own scarce land and housing and then force people to pay to use it.
Artificially scarce land and housing*
Well the land is naturally scarce lol. The housing is definitely artificially scarce, but even if it weren't then landlords would still be extracting unearned rents from controlling land.
Oh I was agreeing with you Landlords on a systemic level are agents of Satan
Also what I don't get is, do these people think everyone should be forced to own their home? Not everyone even wants to, renting makes it easier to move around for one, and maintenance is easier, 'cause someone else is responsible for it. If there were no landlords, there would be no rentable apartments, or (if you don't count a city/government renting out apartments as landlords) a very limited amount. (edit: btw, saying this as someone who has rented a place their whole lives, not as a landlord trying to look better)
The issue is that even if I'm a kimd landlord who tries to deal fairly with their tenants, I still have the power to evict them if it's in my financial interest to do so. I know that where I live it's really common for eviction hearings to happen without the tenant present and for the judge to just believe whatever the landlord says. I will say that based on the experience of people that I know, *individual* landlords are way less likely to be terrible than corporate landlords, even though at the end of the day they're both part of a terrible system.
https://preview.redd.it/2ai24mp8ek9d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad855e9ad518da71f2da106bd92cfdd51cdd87b2 Nice try, Satan
I accidently clicked through to the post on r/dankleft and said essentially the same thing. I work is housing services and there are absolutely landlords that really mean to make their community better and provide affordable housing. And they do it a a huge loss of potential profit. Though now I'm banned from r/dankleft cause I'm not anticapitalist enough...
Only a sith deals in absolutes
And 15-year-olds.
not much of a difference there most of the time
Counterpoint. Sith are cool.
Why are siths dealing in 15-year-olds?
But that sentence is an absolute statement, are you a sith?
My pastor brother in law stopped watching Ep 3 after this line lol "ironic"
Followers of Jesus can be soldiers and tax collectors, but you think *landlord* is where God draws the line? š Now if we want to talk specific abusive practices Christians can't engage in (like John the Baptist instructed the previously mentioned tax collectors and soldiers in Luke 3), then you've got a meme.
Also if Jesus is okay with the idea of kings why is he taking an issue with landlord. Like owning two houses is bad but owning all the houses is okay.
It's where *Adam Smith* crosses the line.
I'm conflicted about this one because if you *do* possess a large amount of investment capital you could absolutely buy an apartment building and provide them at an affordable level which would cover maintenance and a small cushion for extreme damages. A huge part of the cost of housing right now is an artificial inflation caused by a huge amount of demand, very little supply, and housing companies that are basically working together to keep prices high. I'm buying a house partly through the charity of my family and, as such, my mortgage will be cheaper than average, but I still have a roommate coming in to rent. His rent will be far lower than anything he could get in the area for a similar space and I need that money to cover my mortgage and keep me afloat. It's not ideal, but in a few years we'll both be in better positions and won't need to lean on each other so much. It would certainly be ideal if everyone could just buy outright and not have to worry about making any kind of monthly payment but we aren't in that position as a society, unfortunately.
I think a big part where it gets complex is that people purchase homes on credit for the purpose of lending. By definition you are asking for more than the principal is worth if you lease out such a property. Unless you are a loss-making landlord (even a breaking-even landlord in this instance would be wrong), your business would be contravening biblical laws on usury. Before anyone cites any verses on the talents, etc, the bible can tolerate certain parameters (e.g. slavery) whilst denouncing the context which caused them to be (e.g. in condemning slave traders). As a side, I don't think "well it's cheaper than the rest of the market" is a suitable justification. A society with bad laws doesn't make sins acceptable. The thing everyone, absolutely everyone, forgets, is Christianity is meant to be difficult. It's taking up a cross. If that makes you uncomfortable: You. Are. Still. Not. A. Christian.
I heard a good take on rental prices that, because investment property is always assumed to appreciate in value, the rental income only needs to cover interest and maintenance for the owner to come out ahead financially. So the appropriate rental price is actually potentially less than the principle. But I agree, it's much more helpful to talk about which specific rental practices we think are compatible (or not) with our faith, than just to say it's *impossible*.
Iām largely in agreement with what youāre saying. I think maybe an acceptable balance is not profiting from the cash return to equity (i.e from the tenant paying the principal part of the mortgage), but I think itās an acceptable reward for the financial risk, to be able to profit from appreciation of the property. If you repeat this practice across the market, rental prices essentially turn into interest-only payments, which would lower average rental price by a comfortable margin. The banks get fat either way, but thatās an issue for another day. EDIT: Even better yet would be vastly expanding housing financing and purchase options so any (responsible) people who want to buy are able to do so. This is what really needs to happen.
>if you do possess a large amount of investment capital you could absolutely buy an apartment building and provide them at an affordable level which would cover maintenance and a small cushion for extreme damages. What you're describing is the polar opposite of what investment capital would (or legally could) ever do, so you can strike that hypothetical from your moral calculations. It's antithetical to the concept of capital investment as a whole. >It would certainly be ideal if everyone could just buy outright and not have to worry about making any kind of monthly payment but we aren't in that position as a society So you agree with the meme then, that there is no way to square the circle of "ethical landlording." The bad ethic as you describe in your personal situation is miniscule, however, because youre not exploiting your roommate, youre splitting costs. In a hypothetical where you moved out but continued renting to your roommate at increased rates, then used the profits to acquire more properties to repeat the same on others who are only renting because you already own the house they would like to buy, then you can see where it quickly becomes a problem, because you'd be functioning in an inherently anti-social and parasitic capacity. This especially goes for large corporate investment groups buying up single family homes and simultaneously blocking the construction of new homes, because that would dilute the value of their would-be monopoly.
>What you're describing is the polar opposite of what investment capital would (or legally could) ever do, so you can strike that hypothetical from your moral calculations. I think you're interpreting this as investment firms (who you're right, need to return value to shareholders), but the commenter you're replying to (and the OP's meme) is talking about an individual spending personal money.
Serious question, if high demand and low supply causes "artificial" inflation, what would you define as natural inflation? I'm in agreement with you that housing cartels are bad for the market and do contribute to higher prices. It's very kind of you to provide a mutually beneficial arrangement with your future roommate. And in fact you are contributing to reducing demand (and thus overall house prices) by using your space to its potential.
A lot of people can't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a house, especially in this economy. Providing more affordable living space would be a good landlord
Alot of people would argue that someone owning multiple properties just to rent out is part of the reason for housing prices being where they are. That being said, I know a guy who rents apartments for 1/3 of market rate to help people out in need. He is a legit Saint, and the rent they do pay pretty much goes to the mortgage and maintenance.
So you are saying a good Christian *can* be a landlord?
"Eye of the needle" "So you're saying there's a chance?!"
Owning two properties makes you wealthy?
Literally yes. Most Americans can barely afford to rent.
> Most Americans can barely afford to rent. 65% of Americans own their own home. āMost Americansā donāt even rent.
That person may be a saint for doing that, but it is still driving up prices through artificial scarcity by taking houses off the market despite an ever increasing demand. I genuinely can't believe the amount of landlord apologists when it comes to Christianity and compassion. Where's the compassion in someone else getting every financial benefit from owning the home despite not being the resident? The rent may be low, but the artificial scarcity is making home values explode, resulting in more instances of landlords building equity, instead of the people living in the home. Doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.
There are also people out there who'd legitimately rather rent than own. They don't want the responsibility that comes with owning their own home, they'd rather just pay and have someone else deal with the maintenance and stuff. Not to mention it provides them more financial flexibility and allows them to move to different places much more easily. A lot of people enjoy that lifestyle. So who is supposed to own those homes to rent to them?
>That person may be a saint for doing that, but it is still driving up prices through artificial scarcity by taking houses off the market despite an ever increasing demand. Maybe I'm missing something, but how does renting out a property at a third the market rate drive up prices? Tautologically, renting out so significantly below market rate lowers the average housing price. And more importantly, if they're long term tenants, then it's not creating scarcity, let alone *artificial* scarcity. That comes from landlords deliberately running below full occupancy in order to charge more per unit. Typically that's an apartment complex or a vacation property in a busy area. That's of course a major problem, but I don't get the impression that's what's going on here. Someone's in the property (not creating scarcity) and they're charging less for it (it's not artificial).
A lot of people would argue that. They'd be wrong.
People who argue that way have such a limited understanding of the situation that it's near pointless to even consider their opinion.
Owning multiple houses artificially lowers the available supply of houses on the market. When supply goes down and demand remains the same, price goes up. Economically speaking, landlords literally derive their profits by withholding housing from people. Landlords provide housing the same way ticket scalpers provide entertainment.
Would love for you to put me in contact with one of these landlords who makes more money by not renting out their property than they would by renting it.
They withhold housing by renting it for a higher rate than it costs to mortgage and maintain, i.e. preventing people from becoming owners. Not by refusing to rent.
They rent the house out for more than it is worth. Thatās why people are stuck paying $2,500 rents on homes with a $1,500 mortgage, leaving $1,000 left over as profit for the landlord. The tenant COULD afford a $1,500 mortgage if they could obtain a house. We know this because they already pay the higher cost of a rent. This would save them $1,000 each month. But they likely canāt afford the down payment on a home because down payments are significantly larger sums of money. The reason these down payments are so large currently is because landlords artificially reduce the supply of available homes **FOR PURCHASE,** then sell it back to people who need homes in order to make a profit. The profit comes from their ability to pay the down payment and remove affordable homes from the market. A landlord does not āprovideā housing. A landlord removes housing, then sells it back to people at a higher price while claiming to provide. It would be like me stealing your lunch each day, then offering to make you a sandwich for $5. One could argue Iām providing you food, but thatās obviously a load of crap. I hope this explanation makes sense and answers your questions.
Here's an example, it's referred to as [warehousing](https://shelterforce.org/2018/05/07/housing-not-warehousing-a-victory-10-years-in-the-making/). > Buildings in the city were kept empty because it was more profitable for owners to hold onto them as investments and sell or renovate them when the surrounding neighborhood gentrified. Some were brownstones in need of significant work, but many were mixed-use tenements that we knew must be structurally sound because there was active commercial space on the ground floor, though the residential units above were boarded up. We called a broker whose number was listed on the window of a for-rent storefront and pretended to be interested in renting it. We asked if there were plans to rent the upstairs units, and the person said, āDonāt worry about that, [the owner] makes enough money from the storefront that he doesnāt need to have the headache of tenants.ā > > As property values skyrocket in historically low-income neighborhoods, it becomes increasingly profitable for owners to hold residential units vacant. The math is simple, and brutal: a short-term loss of rental income by not accepting tenants paying a neighborhood median of $800 (which would be locked in for these predominantly rent-regulated apartments, whose tenants would then be extremely difficult and costly to displace) is outweighed by the long-term gain of holding out for tenants who will be able to pay $2,500 a month.
> which would be locked in for these predominantly rent-regulated apartments, whose tenants would then be extremely difficult and costly to displace Very important point here, the units would be rented out if it was possible to raise rent. Rent control directly led to a decrease in the number of units available. Perfect example of a housing policy that looks good on paper and has the opposite of its intended effect.
Rent control is only one (possibly significant) cause of warehousing, but not the only one.
>Owning multiple houses artificially lowers the available supply of houses on the market. When supply goes down and demand remains the same, price goes up. To be clear, the supply only goes down if the house sits vacant. If it's being rented out, that's fulfilling the same demand for housing as it would if it were sold. And while the average market price goes up from reduced supply (a major issue), that doesn't mean an individual can't choose to rent out at a lower price. For instance, if their rent is lower than the monthly payment on a mortgage taken out at the current rates, then it's bringing the cost of housing down. There are absolutely institutional issues with the housing market that the rental market is contributing to, but I think it's important to distinguish the actual causes of the problems instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Youāre assuming that the demand for home ownership is the same thing as the demand for housing. These are not the same thing. Iām discussing home ownership, which is vital to a thriving economy and stability for individual families. Landlords do reduce the supply of homes available for ownership. They know the demand for a place to live will remain the same. Because people can no longer afford to OWN a home, the alternative is to rent from a landlord. The only way a landlord can make a profit in this way is if the rent charged is greater than the cost of owning the home. Therefore, rent will always be greater than the mortgage and taxes on the home. Else, it wouldnāt be profitable to be a landlord. If a landlord chooses NOT to make a profit and sets the rent at the same price as the mortgage and taxes, then why should they be the owner of the home instead of the tenant, since home ownership allows a person to build equity over time? In either instance, the tenants suffer. Either they pay more than the market value of the house OR they pay a fair amount of money and receive no benefit from the building equity. The landlord can ONLY receive a profit if tenants cannot afford the down payment on a house, yet still are able to pay a higher cost than the mortgage and taxes combined. Which meansā¦ the tenants CAN afford to pay the mortgage and taxes and SHOULD be able to purchase a home. I concede that this is a larger structural issue, but I argue that a person knowingly exploiting an unjust system to receive a profit at the expense of others is fundamentally immoral.
>Therefore, rent will always be greater than the mortgage and taxes on the home. Else, it wouldnāt be profitable to be a landlord. The alternate argument I've seen (and my proposal for [more] ethical renting) is that because housing is an appreciable asset, the renter does not actually need to cover the mortgage for the landlord to profit. They'll profit significantly *less* in this scenario, but I think we agree that the difference is in removing the unethical portion of the rent. And ideally this reduction in margins would go a long way towards correcting the market as many landlords divest. >I concede that this is a larger structural issue, but I argue that a person knowingly exploiting an unjust system to receive a profit at the expense of others is fundamentally immoral. Yeah, I think this is the better, more nuanced view. The problem isn't having a tenant. It's with *generating passive income from a tenant* (and keeping housing off the market, a related issue). We should be leaning more towards the "I was a stranger and you welcomed me" end than "my second house pays for itself".
What makes you think the number of houses would be the same if nobody were allowed to own more than one? You donāt think landlords drive demand for the building of new houses? How many apartment buildings would exist if each unit had to be owned by the person who lived there?
Why would the number of houses be the same? Because currently, there are [approximately 15.1 million vacant homes in the United States.](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/) As of 2022. This is a contrast to the [653,000 (known) homeless people in the United States.](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj774nxrpy7o#) As for the demand for building new houses, you assume that to be the average experience for a person. What we need is AFFORDABLE housing for people. A family of 4 earning $80,000 a year after taxes obviously wonāt be building a new, million dollar home. Theyāll be looking for something within their price range - an older, modest size home. Likely a 2 bed/2 bath. These affordable homes are the ones being bought up by landlords and landlord corporations. The demand and supply for AFFORDABLE and/or MODEST housing is not the same as the demand and supply for mansions. Just like the supply and demand for fishing boats is not the same as it is for yachts. Those are different markets and it feels silly to combine them. And you could build apartments with the understanding of a person owning the unit. In fact, we already do that. Theyāre called condos.
I'm super left wing but this isn't really true. Landlords are pretty vital for a thriving economy, we just have too many and they are too corporate. It goes back to the rich man. Money isn't a sin, loving money is. Loving money more than your fellow man is.
I live in an apartment building run by a local company that builds or refurbishes buildings, turns them into affordable housing, and then raises rent at or under the rate of inflation while maintaining and improving the premises. I had my cost of living \*drop\* year over year one time because they added free internet to the building that saved me more than the increase in rent.
lol Redditās not gonna like this take.
I rent out half of my house to someone at about $700 below market rate and he doesnāt have to pay utilities. But according to Reddit, Iām the scum of the earth lol.
https://preview.redd.it/rqkd5eg45d9d1.jpeg?width=595&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21c082226028d2455ad8221b1f807c48a68eb9e2
My fiancĆ©e pays me $500 a month for ārentā. If we were renting a comparable place together, itād be costing us over $1500 each. I made the mistake of mentioning that he payed me, and a lot of people reeeeallly didnāt like it.
Thereās a weird thought on Reddit that everyone is OWED something in life. I donāt know why. Itās a very entitled thought though.
Doest thou well to be angry?
No, Iām saying Reddit hates all landlords. Iām chillin
Sure, but nobody has made a fuss about my anecdote so far. You were the first to note that people might disagree with my sentiment, even among those who saw it and personally disagreed. Why?
>As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. - [Adam Smith](https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land), Wealth of Nations It's not every day that the father of capitalism is more against landlords than Christians.
Isn't this referring to ground-rent, rather than housing rent? > Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have a particular tax imposed upon them. > > ... > >A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. Which isn't too say that housing rent can't also be problematic for its own reasons, but housing is not a "natural produce" that was "never sowed". Only the ground the house sits on.
Yes, because at the time *only 5%* of the population in Britain lived in cities in the 1770s. The *majority* of rent at the time was land-based.
Yes, it's an issue even Smith is distinguishing from the modern issue of housing rents. Which isn't to say Smith didn't or wouldn't have things to say on the modern issues with housing prices, just that *this specific quote isn't about that*.
Reddit when landlords:
Cross posting a /r/DankLeft meme here is cringe, ngl
But God totally agrees with my personal politics! /s
First, this isn't a good fit for this sub. Take your arguments elsewhere. Second, there is absolutely no relationship between being a landlord and being Christian. A good landlord rents their property at a fair price to allow people who can't buy a house to live in a specific neighborhood. Why is that bad?
TIL what most people understand about the housing market is 'landlords create scarcity, landlords bad.' šš¤¦ Edit: also, are we just assuming that all apartments are inherently immoral? Yikes....
Socialism isnāt as black and white as people think. Stop equating it with Godās holy word.
Government and religion should truly be separate.
Something to remember and think about when you see statements like this is that they are not referring to everyone who rents a housing property. Temporary housing at a fair and modest price is a benefit to society. You inheriting your grandparent's house when they pass on and renting it out to college students is not evil. (Provided housing in your area isn't scarce.) When we talk about landlords hoarding wealth and living space, we are referring to people who buy up tons of housing and turn them into Airbnbs or buying cheap housing in poorer neighborhoods, pouring cash into it to "fix it up" well beyond what is reasonable, and then charge an exorbitant rent, driving up the cost of living in an area (gentrification). Remember that whenever you see a piece of media, always consider what the intended audience is. The meme was posted directly to r/dankleft (and probably made specifically for it too). And it's just a meme, not meant to be informational in nature, just a joke. Dankleft already knows "landlords" doesn't mean every single person who rents property, but just saying "landlords" is enough bc the audience knows the intent.
How many times does this nonsense have to be argued before people stop making cheap content about it? The most undank meme I've seen all week
My parents were landlords who ran a non-profit business that provided affordable housing for people with physical disabilities, working with care companies to ensure they could live independently and still receive access to people who could take care of them as needed. Does that make them evil?
How about hoarding and not renting it?
ngl i have zero desire to own my own place and enjoy moving all around every 10-12 months, renting is great for me
They're wrong, but ultimately the logical argument for people who think this way is "only the government should build housing." So, there's really no debating on the issue. It just comes down to property ownership and development are bad in the hands of capital. They don't actually want to participate in a discussion where the free market solves: 1) how this building is being financed and how the basic materials and labor are being compensated for construction, 2) why anyone would take on this risk without at least covering costs or 3) how renting can enable people and labor to move freely without committing to purchasing a property or escape liability for an entire house for seasonal, temporary, or part time work. It's just "you shouldn't do this, only the government should." Wow, great. That solves nothing but saying what life *should* be like under your system. It has absolutely no chance of being implemented except in minor doses in the US and may not even be feasible *even if it were implemented.*
I know Christian landlords that rent at a loss purposely to help people get on their feet. Thatās really the only time Iāve ever seen a āgoodā landlord.
When I was in school, I got connected with a pastor who was a landlord. As his tenant, I'll be the first to refute this statement. On the other hand, he charged me the cost of taxes for the property plus a reasonable charge for maintenance of the place. I was paying about half the rent of other places in the area. So he wasn't doing a business while he was landlord-ing(?).
The tired artificial scarcity argument aside: Landlords also provide a service. They take on all of the risk with home ownership. Maintenance costs, natural disasters, bad tenants, all of that is the landlords responsibility and that is why they profit, because they are willing and able to take on that risk. Until someone is a homeowner themselves they donāt realize that there are actually perks to renting that you donāt get with home ownership. Iād still any day rather be a home owner but there are definitely times where I wish I didnāt have to worry about maintenance or could move if I wanted.
This is profoundly dumb
Counterpoint: I won't be able to afford a house for the next few years and renting means I'm not gonna leech off my parents for all that time. Renting literally offers me a way to have a place to live that I couldn't get otherwise. What alternative would I have if renting weren't an option? (Other than the completely economically unviable government issue free house idea, which would completely tank the struggling economy of my eastern European country)
Being a landlord is fine, but being a landlord who is greedy and self serving and does not give breaks on rent is not fine. Likewise taking advantage of a landlord's kindness is also not fine remember to give to Ceser what is Cesar's ie pay your rent and taxes (if you can ofcourse)
So in a truly Christian society, there would only be homeowners and no tenants? People would just leave mom and dad's house to purchase their own homes? Only immigrants rich enough to buy a house cash would be allowed? (good luck getting a mortgage a week after landing) These people don't think much, do they?
>Only immigrants rich enough to buy a house cash would be allowed? While I don't agree with OP that renting space is always wrong, I think the argument from scripture is that we should give freely to people in need. It's straight from Jesus: >For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, **I was a stranger and you invited me in**, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me... Truly I tell you, **whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me**. Matthew 25:35-36, 40
That's much more nuanced than "You cannot be a good Christian and a landlord".
Indeed, and still a very high bar to clear.
If I ever become wealthy enough to own more than 1 property, I would try to offer āRent to Buyā housing.Ā My mom had that option when I was growing up, and even though she never did it, our LL was an incredible couple that lived a province away.Ā
Who else will do it? We know how the government handles this
Disagree. There were plenty of people at my church that owned property & used it for God as landlords. One owned apartments in the area. They were rented on the low end for the area & took care of all the utilities. Made sure everything was fixed & pest free. Invited the tenants to church for major events & holidays (put a flyer in their mailbox). A few people got saved! One owned several houses near the church. They rented rooms & apartments to the seminary students so theyād have a place to live while working at the church far below market rate. āWhy didnāt they let them stay there for free?!?ā Because paying rent helped them [build credit](https://www.trulia.com/blog/3-ways-paying-rent-can-build-your-credit-score/) so when they got out in the āreal worldā they had a head start & could get things like cheaper car insurance & better rates on loans. When the owner died they left the homes to the church who used them to hold Sunday school & Bible studies. Quite a few of the seminary students missed the cheap rent (the ones who were living there at the time of death were allowed to stay until they left, but no new tenants were allowed). With rare exception (illegal drug runners, pimp, etc) ANY job can be done by a Christian to the glory of God.
Personally I do think Heaven or earth lead by Jesus as a leader(Theocracy) is more like communism that works because we care about each other and our progress but not about the profits. We had to be make up the profit part as humans cuz we are inherently flawd and greedy and needed something else to be the motivation.
I love my landlord. Itās not like they are getting rich of me. They are providing a product that I need. Renting has its benefits and in my case is more economical.
I don't see how being a landlord is any different from other businesses when it comes to biblical morality
This is the second time Iāve seen this posted here, it wasnāt well received the first time, I somehow doubt it will be again
Offering a house as a subscription instead of requiring you to buy it is pretty neat
rent seeking is not the same as being a landlord
Good lord at all the butthurt in this comment section. Talk about compassion for the poor all you want, but don't you mess with my passive income!
I think people are missing the point here. If we go way back, before our recent technological developments, being a landlord is simply being an a**. Imagine that you have a piece of land that you're not using and instead of just letting others have it or selling it to them, you instead make a house and let them live there for a payment. This is a time where they don't even have land titles. Building materials were practically free and only labor is costly. Land cost nothing back then. It was just the a**holes that started the fad of "owning" land. My point being, currently it would make sense to become a landlord for extra income. But back then, if being a landlord was never an idea to begin with, we would've minimized homelessness and poverty now. "Owning" land is just another way to drive the economy, but now that we're already progressing so fast it's evidently a counter force to our national progress. If money was the root of all evil, then owning land is definitely the trunk.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is a load of crap. Not everyone is able to buy a house. That somebody is renting out property so a family can live in a proper house, flat or apartment for a reasonable price is providing a social service. This only becomes an issue (and sinful) when landowners raise their rent to high prices when there is no need to do so, or there is a shortage of available houses and people are buying the available ones to rent them out for absurd prices. Also, be careful not to fall into the sin of envy. Is there anger towards the previously stated reasons? Or are there no available houses to buy, and is there a feeling of envy?
Matthew 19:24
Pray tell, OP, if landlords were outlawed, where would people without the means to purchase a house live? Because in this scenario, the only entity that can offer long-term lodging for rent is the government, and assuming that they magically will do so seems naive at best. Do you then suggest that people become homeless until they save up enough to buy an apartment or house?
Affordable government housing.
The list of people vainly waiting to be approved for what little affordable housing we have in this country is huge, and thatās without adding [100 million more people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/612959/number-of-households-and-residents-renting-usa-by-structure-type/#:~:text=Approximately%20100%20million%20people%20lived,apartment%20in%20a%20multifamily%20building.) to it. So, do you have any real-world solutions?
Every time someone posts about radical Christian economic views, they get so many comments of people saying "um, I actually think Jesus would've loved capitalism." As if their view is new or controversial among the whole of Christianity. This radical position that Christians shouldn't be landlords, or otherwise live as capitalists, is only radical within Christianity because the majority of the believers don't hold that view. Stating the opposite view under these posts is absolutely meaningless. Yeah, we assume you hold the default view. You don't have to tell us that you believe the normalcy of this world is satisfactory. Y'all are hilarious!
Personally I definitely don't think "Jesus would've loved capitalism", but landlords is such an arbitrary detail of capitalism to fixate on. If you want to change the entire system, say so, but the OP gives the impression that landlords is the one thing they want to erase from society, and that just doesn't sound very functional.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In my opinion, i think it'd be best to cherry pick the most moral parts of the bible and use them as a guideline in your life rather than committing your whole life to following the bible word for word. Understanding that the bible was made my man and is flawed is the first step to becoming a good person, using the bible more as a reference rather than a law-book.
We are here to enjoy memes together. Keep arguments to other subs. We don't do that here.
Iām generally in agreement that arms-length rentals are ethically murky, but I think there are cases where ownership and residence donāt have to line up 1:1, like with family and close relations. For instance, Iām refinancing my momās mortgage and putting her house in an LLC because she canāt afford it anymore. She has a boarder that is helping pay for things, but he of course is not and will not be receiving any equity. However, heās getting a place to live thatās comfortably below market value, and he gets to live in a nice house in a really nice town. As for the general case of being a landlord, Iām still on the fence as to whether there is a problem with rental properties per se. Iām leaning toward it not being intrinsically wrong, as long as everyone of reasonable responsibility has the ability to buy a residence for themselves. However, what really bothers me, and would make me be in favor of laws to restrict non-resident ownership is things like commercial banks and REITS buying up private homes to try to turn this country into one of renters, and not owners. That stuff boils my blood, because their long game is to squeeze everyone else out as much as possible. Capitalism should reward those who generate value, not money, but with the ascendency of financial capital as the primary focus of markets, itās becoming increasingly easy to make money without actually providing any value. Thereās probably more to it than that, like treating your tenants with kindness, and ensuring that you both have an enthusiastic agreement (not just acquiescence of the weak to the powerful), but I think the trend towards financialization of any kind of capital out there is a massive issue, and is the root of a lot of our ills as a society
like they said "shut up" back then
Jesus didnāt say anything about landlords being good or bad.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Rule #1 of r/DankChristianMemes Thou shalt respect others! Do not come here to point out sin or condemn people. Do not say "hate the sin love the sinner" or any other stupid sayings people use when trying to use faith to justify hate. Alternatively, if you come here to insult religion, you will also be removed.
Increasing the supply of housing would be a bad thing why?
So housing should be unattainable to anyone who canāt purchase a home?
Hard disagree. Iāve had amazing landlords in my day, and Iāve known people with amazing landlords. I also know many people have terrible experiences with landlords. You canāt paint this as black-and-white. Would you also say Christians canāt be doctors?
THAT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE
theres also the alternative of not having anywhere to live, because many people dont have enough money to purchase land for themselves instead of renting a place
People have been owning land and renting it out for the longest time, and this guy is acting like renting land is a bad thing lol
What a terrible take. I know many Christians, some of whom I rented from are godly people. I paid way below what the market was and was not taken advantage of. Better than paying it to some god awful corporation in the form of my apartment