• LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Buying house for say 100k at 3% APR, renting it because you were laid off and cant afford moving expenses, rent in a different city, plus paying a mortgage on an empty house for 6 months to a year while it sells. Then years later you still keep it because, while you could sell it and cash in, with the low APR you got on it you can afford to rent it for less than the corporate scum suckers who try to monopolize housing = Parasite

    Kicking out your renters and selling said house you bought at 100k for 200k to corporate scum suckers who will turn around and sell it at an even higher price or rent it at really high rates OR someone else who will end up paying way more than the rent I was asking for the place because interest rates are about double and the house has also doubled in price = internet hero

    No room for nuance, got it.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you move or can no longer afford your house, the property should be absorbed into a community coop (or sold to them) and leased back to the tenant or a new family. You keeping ownership of the home is not a requirement, it’s actually a huge problem.

      The only ones insisting on the alternate scenario you just described are landlords who think of themselves as martyrs.