• CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    They just buy one out of thin air? Or is it with the wealth they’ve created through their own skills?

    If it’s so easy to own a house, go buy one.

    • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      We’re talking about landlording, not what they did to afford to start landlording.

      They didn’t make the building and, while they put down the first payments, their tennants are the ones paying for it.

      That’s not creating wealth. That’s not work. That’s living off the wealth created by others.

      If it’s so easy to own a house, go buy one

      Like all other passive income, the challenge is having enough money to start with.

      Once you get past that point, it IS easy, but due to the inherent inequities of capitalism, getting there is literally impossible for the vast majority of people.

      • CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s clear there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the amount of capital required to own an investment property without first living in it as a primary residence for a few years.

        If one were to purchase a property with the expressed intent of immediately renting it, most banks will require at least 25% down with no option to pay PMI to cover the difference. That’s an insane amount of money to put down just so the landlord can make a negative cash flow for the first 10 years. If an investor has that kind of money, and still want to be involved in real estate, they should buy a share in an apartment complex where the margins are more favorable, and the property actually has a positive cash flow.

        Thus nearly ever single family home was purchased initially as a primary residence, with the intent to live there. But then by some circumstance one way or another they needed toove away. Selling a home will cost you 10% of the home’s value in fees. So if that person has any intent to return to the home in the future, it’s better to eat the temporary loss and rent out the property.

        • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          However you dress it up, charging others for shelter isn’t creating anything. It’s profiting off others.

          Besides, the vast majority of tennants rent apartments, not houses, so don’t pretend that your very specific example is the norm.