Asklemmy

43908 readers

1311 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

159

[Serious] The revolution was successful! The old government is gone. You get to help write the new Constitution. What do you put into it? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

325 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think what OP was getting at was not housing being sold to make money down the line but housing being bought, then sat on until prices rise, then sold for more money. All while the property lays vacant.

Not sure though since I can't read minds.

In any case:

overhead costs of fixing everything that breaks

ah yes the act of renting suddenly makes those costs disappear, you know you'd have even less cost if you bought wherever you are living instead since now you don't have the overhead cost of paying the landlord? Renting being cheaper is a myth because most people rent apartments, not houses (At least where I live). If 10 people owned the apartments in the house they live in and shared the repair costs they would be significantly cheaper off than if those 10 people rented their apartments from a landlord.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think what OP was getting at was not housing being sold to make money down the line but housing being bought, then sat on until prices rise, then sold for more money. All while the property lays vacant.

That makes sense. A lot of places fix that with a vacancy tax.

ah yes the act of renting suddenly makes those costs disappear, you know you’d have even less cost if you bought wherever you are living instead since now you don’t have the overhead cost of paying the landlord? Renting being cheaper is a myth because most people rent apartments, not houses (At least where I live). If 10 people owned the apartments in the house they live in and shared the repair costs they would be significantly cheaper off than if those 10 people rented their apartments from a landlord.

It's not a myth. I've literally done the calculations. I live in a 580,000-dollar house. I have an active standing offer to buy this house at 580k. I pay 2.8k for rent. The mortgage for me would be 3.1k to 4.3k a month. Plus repairs. Plus down payment if you pick the number closer to 3k. The reason the large corporation landlord can afford this house with repairs and rent it for that rate is because they don't pay a mortgage, they bought it outright.

So yes, renting can be cheaper than owning.