• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I didn’t say that.

    Sure seemed like you did when you responded to my claim that they would be the only one profiting from it, by saying that is happening now.

    Also, what Im saying overall here, regular people would get more real estate in it were not so profitable.

    Maybe, but the issue is that if you couldn’t use your financing in your calculation on how much rent to charge, only those who can outright buy properties (i.e. the ultrawealthy) would be the ones who could profit from it.

    but that’s financial stuff, not ownership stuff

    But if you have to finance to own, then it is part of the cost. I don’t possibly see how you can argue again this. One could easily decouple the maintenance and taxes from it in the same exact way and say you have to work for the money to pay these things, so it doesn’t count.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t think we are following each others thoughts very well here.

      You (eventually) cannot have property without maintaining it and paying taxes on it. You can have property without financial leverage or even without buying it.

      Im not saying that loan interests and even loan nominal repayments, maintenance, taxes, etc dont get forwarded to tenants, Im saying that only happens because landlords just can do that because are usually in a privileged position to tenants.

      I didn’t understand your claim why only rich would profit from real estate if real estate would be cheaper (bcs of lower rents/yields). In that case everyone could buy or rent.

      And I dont understand how profiting only from the less fortunate wouldn’t only lead to more inequality and more extreme conditions on the same market there already are huge issues atm (can’t buy a house without a 30y loan, wtf?).