What are deadbeat tenants planning to do once eviction restrictions end?

bryan evans wrote:

Tatar wrote:

Dividends are paid from profits and profits are derived from sales of a service or good.

Landlords can extract rent forever. A patch of empty land will generate rent.

Rent is "revenue" and may or may not yield a "profit" when you take into account "expenses." You have overreached on this one. Sorry.

Merely entering someone's land generates revenue. Businesses are making revenue because they are having to do something.

If your "business" is as a landlord you're not doing anything. I wasn't arguing how these things are accounted for on a tax return.

only you can stop communism wrote:

Tatar wrote:

You know that almost every tenant needs a job to get a lease?

And that landlords don't need to work because they get income from their tenants?

Who's the real deadbeat here?

In which they bought the property and have to invest to maintain the property.

the maintenance costs/property taxes are less than the rent received. the only function the landlord serves is having the capital to purchase the property. And for that, they get the right to bleed less fortunate people dry.

I don't know that there's a good solution, but buying property with the intention of renting it is a scummy thing to do. It's hoarding a basic life necessity.

Tatar wrote:

bryan evans wrote:

Rent is "revenue" and may or may not yield a "profit" when you take into account "expenses." You have overreached on this one. Sorry.

Merely entering someone's land generates revenue. Businesses are making revenue because they are having to do something.

If your "business" is as a landlord you're not doing anything. I wasn't arguing how these things are accounted for on a tax return.

Thanks for proving again you have no idea what you're talking about.

Dr Yuengling wrote:

only you can stop communism wrote:

In which they bought the property and have to invest to maintain the property.

the maintenance costs/property taxes are less than the rent received. the only function the landlord serves is having the capital to purchase the property. And for that, they get the right to bleed less fortunate people dry.

I don't know that there's a good solution, but buying property with the intention of renting it is a scummy thing to do. It's hoarding a basic life necessity.

Most landlords have to pay interest on a mortgage so cash flow can be breakeven or worse and a long-term vacancy can result in a loan default.

Lease agreements are a business transaction between people that don't have the savings to own and investors. You must have rented during college or early in your working career. Was it a scummy thing to do for someone to rent to you?

Dr Yuengling wrote:

only you can stop communism wrote:

In which they bought the property and have to invest to maintain the property.

the maintenance costs/property taxes are less than the rent received. the only function the landlord serves is having the capital to purchase the property. And for that, they get the right to bleed less fortunate people dry.

I don't know that there's a good solution, but buying property with the intention of renting it is a scummy thing to do. It's hoarding a basic life necessity.

How do you know the maintenance costs/taxes are less than the rent received? That is the "idea", but that frequently does not happen.

If you get $150 per door per month, as a landlord, you're doing fantastic. That means to make $60,000 (a normal wage) one would need to have _33_ properties, all rented, with no unexpected maintenance. If you think landlords are making a killing per property, you are crazy. Most landlords are landlords because they could not sell the property and get out from under their note.

The landlord takes ALL of the risk for the property and ALL of the commitment. You sign at most a year lease but you can essentially move wherever you want if you don't like the house. Landlords are beholden to a 15-30 year mortgage to the bank. If the property burns down because you put a grill on the patio, you can move out scott free. The landlord is left with zero income and has to fight to get insurance to repair it, if they even do at all.

Essentially the $150 your landlord is making is $150 you are paying over the cost of ownership so you don't have to deal with maintenance or replacing roofs or plumbing or anything else. Pretty good deal for you, in my opinion.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Dr Yuengling wrote:

the maintenance costs/property taxes are less than the rent received. the only function the landlord serves is having the capital to purchase the property. And for that, they get the right to bleed less fortunate people dry.

I don't know that there's a good solution, but buying property with the intention of renting it is a scummy thing to do. It's hoarding a basic life necessity.

Most landlords have to pay interest on a mortgage so cash flow can be breakeven or worse and a long-term vacancy can result in a loan default.

Lease agreements are a business transaction between people that don't have the savings to own and investors. You must have rented during college or early in your working career. Was it a scummy thing to do for someone to rent to you?

I rent now. Not sure what your point is. Not having other options isn’t an endorsement of the system.

I also live in the middle of nowhere Vermont. There’s not a whole lot of people clamoring to live here, because there aren’t a whole lot of jobs. I don’t think my landlord who lives down the street and runs a pizza place in town is particularly scummy. He’d probably happily sell my place to me if I wanted to buy it.

I do think that people and/or companies buying up properties in metropolitan areas for the purpose of profiting off of housing shortages in those areas are very scummy.

Sorry if I didn’t make that distinction clear.

Get back to the original question. What is everyone going to do when they are out on the street?

Sponge off of relatives, if that is even possible in covid times?

They won't qualify to rent someplace else.

There is no system set up to deal with a trippling of the homelessness population. There will just be a huge camped out army committing petty crime and trashing towns and cities.

I expect that there will have to be a massive organized effort to re-fit these people back to work and rental property once covid settles down and jobs slowly return.

What’s the plan? Violence. And lots of it.

bryan evans wrote:

Tatar wrote:

Merely entering someone's land generates revenue. Businesses are making revenue because they are having to do something.

If your "business" is as a landlord you're not doing anything. I wasn't arguing how these things are accounted for on a tax return.

Thanks for proving again you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sorry you've never considered being a landlord isn't dynamic and entrepreneurial before.

The reason you feel disregarded by government is because the economic recovery is reliant on your tenants going back to work. If they're made homeless; it's a longer journey.

Honestly, people are as stupid as what is displayed in this thread? Sad.

Tatar wrote:

You know that almost every tenant needs a job to get a lease?

And that landlords don't need to work because they get income from their tenants?

Who's the real deadbeat here?

The vast majority of landlords DO need to work. Their rental properties are just a way to invest their savings and prepare for retirement.

Not a whole lot different than folks who work, save and invest in stocks and bonds. Most stock holders still need to work.

The smart thing to do, is invest the money you would usually use to pay rent so you get a rate of return. Then when eviction restrictions end, liquidate the investment. Use the proceeds to pay the rent and not get evicted, and then you can keep the excess proceeds (from investment earnings).

They will probably protest and riot and loot and set stuff on fire cause landlords are racisting or something like that.

Tatar wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

If you're in California I'm sure there will be laws put in place to make it even more difficult to collect rent after the pandemic. I've been lucky with the tenants at my rental. But our states unfavorable laws have led me to not invest further in real estate. To easy for tenants to not pay for 3 months then skip to the next location and no real ability to collect.

Your investment has likely still increased in value since you bought it - sell your property to realize its gain.

You're complaining about not being able to collect rent on top of the capital gain on the asset. No other investment operates like this.

That's a very silly thing to say. Many stocks pay dividends. So, the stockholder collects dividends on top of the capital gain of the asset.

Please stop the silly on a serious topic.

Dr Yuengling wrote:

only you can stop communism wrote:

In which they bought the property and have to invest to maintain the property.

the maintenance costs/property taxes are less than the rent received. the only function the landlord serves is having the capital to purchase the property. And for that, they get the right to bleed less fortunate people dry.

I don't know that there's a good solution, but buying property with the intention of renting it is a scummy thing to do. It's hoarding a basic life necessity.

That's so absurd that it is difficult to believe that anyone honestly thinks that.

Houses cost money to build and to maintain. Same with apartment buildings. Landlords provide an incredibly valuable good/service to renters - someplace to live. That is definitely not a "scummy" thing to do.

Of course, there are "scummy" landlords. There are also "scummy" tenants. The same could be said of any large group of people.

Tatar wrote:

bryan evans wrote:

Rent is "revenue" and may or may not yield a "profit" when you take into account "expenses." You have overreached on this one. Sorry.

Businesses are making revenue because they are having to do something.

If your "business" is as a landlord you're not doing anything.

So what about the tech companies that you worship? Do you think Sergey Brin does anything right now? How about Jeff Bezos? They don't have to lift a finger yet they earn hundreds of thousands of dollars every day. Even if you argue that they started it, they aren't doing anything right now. Is that how you define a business?

What about a sports complex in the NE part of the US? A lot of people want to play tennis during the winter, so they pay $15 / hour to rent an indoor court. Does that business pass your standards? Or is the owner of the indoor tennis court doing a scummy thing?

Tatar wrote:

You know that almost every tenant needs a job to get a lease?

And that landlords don't need to work because they get income from their tenants?

Who's the real deadbeat here?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are.

robert678 wrote:

The smart thing to do, is invest the money you would usually use to pay rent so you get a rate of return. Then when eviction restrictions end, liquidate the investment. Use the proceeds to pay the rent and not get evicted, and then you can keep the excess proceeds (from investment earnings).

Or, you could just pay rent in accordance with your contractual obligations. Only a fool would invest in rental real estate in the current socioeconomic climate. I foresee a greatly increased demand for government owned housing in the near future, along with all that entails.

You_Stole_From_GWH wrote:

So what about the tech companies that you worship? Do you think Sergey Brin does anything right now? How about Jeff Bezos? They don't have to lift a finger yet they earn hundreds of thousands of dollars every day. Even if you argue that they started it, they aren't doing anything right now. Is that how you define a business?

What about a sports complex in the NE part of the US? A lot of people want to play tennis during the winter, so they pay $15 / hour to rent an indoor court. Does that business pass your standards? Or is the owner of the indoor tennis court doing a scummy thing?

I've no idea how you think my post equates to being pro-Amazon. Jeff Bezos's wealth is obscene and dangerous. If you want an ally to fight Amazon I'm with you but it's separate to landlordism.

As I've pointed out rent isn't productive. If I own a field I can charge people to enter it. The purpose of entering the field may only be as the quickest route between two locations. The wealth generated is based on manipulation of ownership rather than entrepreneurship. People could freely enter and leave the field before it was bought.

Your tennis court example doesn't work. I don't need to play tennis. But it's impossible for me not to exist on someone's land if I don't own my own.