this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
778 points (97.7% liked)
memes
22014 readers
3590 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most landlords pretend that the money that goes towards paying off the mortgage is a profit. Lots of the ones I see are always like “I make no money off of this” while the tenant pays off their loan for the house for them. Idiots.
I made nothing! I only got an entire house and didnt do any real work for it!
They live paycheck to paycheck. It’s just your paycheck
You'd need proper accounts the P+L and importantly the balance sheet for full transparency At least until they start paying their accountants more for corporate fuckery - though I think many do already to dodge taxes.
But the real fucker is in the bank loan, you probably can't borrow at the same rate until you have as much collateral as them. Even though your rent is literally the asset, and you and the previous tenants keep buying them more collateral that puts them in a better position to borrow more and acquire more.
Good old Free market, no barriers to entry, no first mover advantage, no congestion effects . . . /s. I'm sure rent control is terrible invention, ruins cities.
UK solved this like a century ago with council houses. But then Thatcher sold them off.
Houses and flats owned by the local government and affordable to rent. But now supply is so limited that they only go to the most vulnerable and most people can't get one.
A lot of the ones sold off are now owned by private landlords.
I took a cab ride the other day, in a car the driver probably has bought via a loan, to a pick up an item from a store in commercial space they're probably leasing, brought in via money they borrowed short-term to finance the purchase of goods to be sold. Tell me which of these CoGS fees they were correct to collect from my payment, and which of these you would rabidly avoid because of the filthy lies.
In my area there are two types of rental properties available.
Nicer newer apartment complexes that are corporate owned that have overly restrictive lease agreement and have rents that are two to three times what a mortgage would cost on a house of similar square footage, if any were available which of course there aren't. And the icing on the cake is most of them are owned by a single holding company which puts most of its profits into buying property and building new complexes to keep its tax rates down.
Older run down apartments with chipping paint, creaky floors and drafty windows that used to be single family homes and have now been split into two to four rental units. Oftentimes the owner of the property lives in one of the units and their only source of income is the renters of the other units. Repairs happen only if absolutely necessary and improvements are out of the question because that cuts into their living expenses.
Of the two I think the corporations are more insidious and deserve more of the ire that seems to go towards private landlords. But that being said both business models are clearly problematic and exploitative and it doesn't take a degree in economics to see that comparing them to small businesses that pass some of their startup costs onto their customers is a false equivalency and a bad faith argument.