• Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    Could that be because those homeowners are charging rents high enough to cover both mortgage and insurance and more on the rented property?

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Correct. In capitalism one must profit off the necessities of life.

      Also, when you buy a house, the cost of the mortgage is locked in…assuming you don’t do an adjustable rate mortgage which were never designed for long term homeownership.

      • Xanis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yessum. I knew someone who put 20k down on a house after saving for awhile, this was back in late 2010s. Locked in $385/mo. Still had the yearly taxes, which weren’t the worst.

    • mercator_rejection@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I am not sure why you think it should be any way else with our current systems, though. Asking less means the home owner is effectively paying for maintenance and upkeep entirely out of pocket, and entirely net loss for them. That said, I also don’t think that means they need to price gouge and trying to make huge profits.

      • Preflight_Tomato@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not a net loss. Renter’s pay can be used for maintenance or equity or anything else. Since houses don’t depreciate in this market and maintenance costs are not even close to rent, the landlord only gains.

        • mercator_rejection@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I understand, but the comment I replied to was implying that rent should somehow be less than mortgage plus insurance. My point is that under those circumstances, it doesn’t make sense.

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        An equitable method would beto splitthe cost of mortgage and insurance between the property owner and the renter. 60/40, 50/50 etc. Having the renter foot the entire bill with no benefit other than occupancy is just not a fair deal imho.

      • SuperCub@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can only live in one location at any given time, so the fact someone is willing to pay money to use an otherwise unused, extraneous space/house is indeed a profit by any measure.