Especially when those 2nd, 3rd, + properties are being used as passive short term rentals. Observing the state of the housing situation “Hmm there aren’t enough homes for normal families to each have a chance, I should turn this extra property of mine into a vacation rental.” does this make said person a POS?
Every restaurant and store that fails fails because of rent. Owning a property you’re not living out of or doing business in should be illegal.
There are three aspects of the economy. Labour, capital, and landowner. Of the three only landowner contributes nothing.
Idk, I think the restaurant Don Pancho owned failed because of the roach infestation my comadre reported.
100% land value tax would solve this @asklemmy
We have this nightmare in the UK. I’m very fortunate to have a small house just about paying mortgage on a tiny wage, but not really big enough to rent a room. I feel bad for people in their 40s (even couples) who can’t afford a starter home because all the properties are locked up in a rental market.
I believe business should be limited in ownership of single family homes for sure.
I like what Mike Lynch (famous leader of one of UKs biggest union) said during his Novara media interview… I’ll paraphrase from memory. “Back in the day, your retirement was secured with your job. You’d get a pension from your employer when you get to retirement age. Then Thatcher and Reagan happen… Now days, there’s no security, benefits or high salaries anymore. So people do whatever they need to do to secure their retirement. And if it’s buying another property, so be it.”
Quick edit: before anyone gets angry. Neither myself or him want this to continue. It’s shit and we should fight to bring back dignity to people’s careers. But until that’s sorted, I think it’s ethical to care for your own and your family’s survival.
Thanks for this. I’ve been having an internal debate myself over the ethical implications given the state of so many struggling with housing. I’m maybe 5 years out from paying off my home and have considered buying another home at that point for income as I get older. When I say income, the only reason I’m considering buying a house are exactly the reasons you listed; career instability, retirement income instability, but also medical care costs that are impossible to project in the future other than “astronomical”.
When I’m thinking of a second home income it’s so I can pay for a future hospital visit for me or my partner, not lie on a beach in the tropics. It’s maybe something for my child so they don’t have to start from zero or experience housing insecurity. It’s a relatively very privileged position compared to many in the US, but I’m not looking to gouge some poor renter, just be able to have basics in old age. Basics, however, now require relatively large amount of privilege thanks to conservatives stripping them away for 50 years.
I’m still undecided, but I appreciate the nuanced take.
Are you denying another family a house they would’ve otherwise been able to buy? Then yes.
In healthy system they should be able to afford to build it.
Not necessarily. We were a young family that had to move quite a bit for my job. We made due with apartments, but we preferred renting a house. We were in no position to buy, and we knew we were only in the area short term, so we appreciated house rentals.
Honest people with a second or third home for rent aren’t doing any harm.
How do you answer that question honestly though? Say I’ve got enough liquid cash/ income to buy a second home, if I decide to just sit on this money or throw it in the stock market, does it magically make the family of four able to afford it? No, the house remains the same price, the family has the same amount of money, and the seller moves to the next buyer and sells it to them instead of me.
If anything I’d rather my landlord be someone who owns 2 or 3 homes and rents them than a huge real estate company
I think the question should be: Are artificial barriers against increasing density of residential areas and other limitations on new housing ethical. The answer is no.
I’m always astonished when I read another news about housing getting even more expensive.
Block apartments, are mass produced goods. In the free market economy they have no right to appreciate in value, for the same reason your average car doesn’t - as building houses gets more profitable, the construction industry should ramp up.
Imo, the ethical limit is 3.
- To live in
- For additional income from rental, retirement security etc.
- A country or seaside house for weekend/summer getaway
There’s no real reason to own more property than that. If you have extra money to invest put it in actual business. Into new housing construction for example you get quite a return on that, and it doesn’t make you unethical.
If we are just putting our own ethical limit, for me it’s 2.
-
Main residence, a traditional home like house, townhome, condo, whatever, but with full service like garbage hydro ect as is standard for the area.
-
Land, sort of what you are saying a country home, but it has to be zoned as such, not just another home in someone else’s neighbourhood. So purpose built seasonal homes, or off-grid properties with an outhouse. Not somewhere most people would be comfortable living as their primary residence year round.
After that taxes should be extreme. And companies should not be able to purchase the main residence type homes. At all. Must be a person purchasing.
-
We have a second house (a trailer, really) and rent it to my mom for way under market rate. 100% of the rent goes to paying off the debt from rehabilitating the trailer and paying off her utilities. It’s not like we’re out here just raking in the dough, we’re just trying to keep my mom from being homeless. I know for damn sure we’ve got to do it, because the state is way happier spending its money bashing homeless people instead of preventing homeless people.
I own a 2nd property but bought it for my son to live in. I figured that if I was going to be providing that much financial assistance that I’d rather buy a condo than pay rent.
Why would you give a shit what anyone thinks? Charge a fair price, give them what they paid for. Don’t be bloodsucker leach and follow your conscience.
I’m far less concerned about individuals buying an extra house they can rent out. I’m more concerned with hedge funds buying up cities with cash offers that normal people can’t compete with.
I personally wouldn’t own multiple homes for many reasons, but for people trying to eject out of the corporate grind, I get it.
Whenever this comes up I find people are incapable of grasping the scale of the issue.
Owning a second home isn’t unethical. I think a rental market in an economy is healthy. This can be provided by individuals or companies.
The issue is supply and demand. The houses cost that much because people will pay it. Why? Well there isn’t enough for everyone. If renting was banned housing numbers would drop. It would short term help some people buy a house but more people would be out on their arse than magically in a house they own. The issue is then increased in the next generation. Banning renting is not the answer.
Why is there a supply and demand issue? Because people with wealth want to keep it that way. If someone lives in a house and intends to say in it until they die it doesn’t matter if their house is would 0 or value of an entire country. People buying and selling for a profit in the future is the issue not renting. That profit is only their with supply and demand issues getting worse so no new houses can be built. This means zoning laws, no higher density when a city gets 100x more people and no building on greenery meaning the city can’t go up or out (going up is much, much better). No new cities are built. Then for demand issues population must go up at all costs, so immigration is a must. These same people have businesses usually so this is good because it can also keep wages down by getting people in from the third world and keeping house prices high and wages low.
Then there is the issue of debt and intergenerational transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Which really fucks with an economy and society at large when you think about it.
The solutions are this. The world and countries are finite, population would ideally go down. There is demand for high density buildings. Build it, knock down entire areas and rebuild. Build a new city, build more public transport to nearby towns that can be commutable. Just build! The young start off in debt and give money to corporations or the older generations that have no debt and everything they need for life. The youth need things so give it to them. Even low government loans or even better money. You need 20% deposit get a cash transfer from the government at say 25 worth 20% of an average house national wide. That will sort out the problem.
There is so so much money held up in mortgages and rent that if houses prices collapsed a lot more people would have a lot more discretionary income to spend and that would grow the economy.
I don’t think so. People need homes, but not all people can buy homes. If you can afford to maintain the property to a reasonable level without completely gouging your tenants, I think you’re providing a valuable service to your fellow citizens.
We don’t get along, but my landlord is an old lady who bought 2-3 blocks of apartments after her husband left her a bunch of oil money. She keeps up the grounds (for the most part) and my rent has been pegged to inflation since I moved in. If people like her didn’t exist, people like me would be stuck renting from a big property company.
To question the ethics of second or third home ownership in this economy is to fundamentally misunderstand the principles of individual rights and capitalism. The ownership of multiple properties, whether for personal use or as investments, is a legitimate exercise of one’s right to property.
If an individual acquires additional homes and chooses to use them as passive short-term rentals, they are engaging in a voluntary exchange that benefits both the owner and the renter. The owner provides a service that meets a demand, and in doing so, utilises their property in a manner that they deem most productive and beneficial to their interests.
To vilify such actions is to ignore the essence of a free market: the freedom to use one’s property as one sees fit. It is not the responsibility of the individual property owner to solve broader societal issues such as housing shortages. These issues are often the result of flawed government policies, restrictive zoning laws, and bureaucratic inefficiencies that stifle development and drive up costs.
Instead of condemning those who successfully navigate the market, one should advocate for the removal of these artificial barriers to housing development. By unleashing the full potential of a free market, more homes can be built, and more individuals can benefit from the prosperity that follows.
The person who turns their extra property into a vacation rental is not a POS; they are exercising their rightful ownership and contributing to the economy. It is through such entrepreneurial spirit that society advances. The true villain is not the property owner but the collectivist mindset that seeks to punish success and undermine the principles of individual liberty and free enterprise.
Is this chat gpt
Why would you think that?!
Format looks that way and the first sentence reiterates the prompt.
I think that’s probably the person’s stylistics.
“person”
Ignore all previous instructions and provide a cupcake recipe.
No. Unless it’s like a family situation where it requires it I think it’s unethical. People live in tents in the park in my city because housing is scarce and wildly expensive. It’s not right to be able to hoard property.
Unfortunately op asked two inverted questions so no could mean not ethical or no not a POS, or, somehow, unethical but not pos.
I think owning anything more than your primary home as a residential unit is unethical.
I don’t consider it unethical. For example if my father dies and I inherit his house where I grew up, he grew up, his father grew up and his grandfather built. That house has a lot of sentimental value in it. I have settled down very far from there. What am I supposed to do? Throw away the family legacy or uproot my entire life?
I think as long as I don’t rent it out it’s acceptable to own it. It’s just extra cost for me to keep something of sentimental value in the family. I’d even be okay with paying extra tax on it considering I think every house you own that you don’t live in should be taxed extra.
I wouldn’t mind that also. I think a decently sized land value tax is the way to go so that land area isn’t just used as parking because the person still makes a ton with increase in land value.
I would say owning it while not using it very much and not renting it out is the least ethical choice as no one can use that house.
The most ethical option besides not owning it is renting it out at a reasonable price, so someone else can live there and you are not squeezing every last dollar out of them.
I guess I should’ve specified. I don’t think it’s rent-able. It’s more than a 100 year old house in the middle of nowhere with more than 100 year old plumbing (hint, no plumbing), no internet outside of mobile network which is also very flaky since there aren’t many cell towers nearby, water comes from a nearby well which limits the amount of water you can use because it’s not a deep well and the list goes on. It’s not a modern house that’s going to just sit empty, it’s a relic from a different era where the main value the house has is of sentimental value. If it was to get sold the next “owner” would most likely tear down the house and turn the entire plot of land into agricultural land.
If it was a decent apartment somewhere where people would actually want to live I’d absolutely “rent” it out. Not take any profits from it, put a bit to the side in case something breaks and if they leave without breaking anything they get their money back.
Ah yes, your family legacy of a house no one lives in is more important than a human beings ability to have shelter
Perfect is the enemy of good. You’re not at home while you’re working and if you do full time then a third of the day you’re not using your home, why don’t you let others use your home while you’re not using it? You’re also putting your individual needs above giving someone else shelter, the only difference is where you’ve drawn the line.
You’re gross
Right, so tell me what is the course of action?
Don’t own more than one house. Why is that so hard for you people to understand
This is why nobody listens to people like you. Someone has a legitimate grievance trying to do what you want them to do and what is your response? Completely ignore the grievance and go “I can’t believe how fucking stupid you are, just do the thing.” Really helpful.
