• Maalus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The risk of losing is thousands - it’s absolutely not “nothing”, as I said, it could be years of someone’s life.

    You have a really weird way of looking at business. It’s not free to have someone renting property from you and “paying the mortgage”. It’s not risk free.

    • HelloThere
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The risk is losing something you can afford to lose.

      It may be undesirable, sure, but if you can’t afford to lose it then you shouldn’t be investing it.

      Landlords provide no service, they simply increase the cost of housing. A landlord does not fix your boiler, a plumber does. A landlord does not pay for furniture, you do through your rent. A landlord does not provide housing, they take existing housing off the market and lease it at a premium above the equilvent mortgage rate.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, you should have started with “landlord bad landlord not work”, would’ve saved me a lot of wasted time in replying to you.

        And let me guess - no landlords means no homelessness and no housing crisis anywhere

        • HelloThere
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Landlords are one of the many factors which restrict access to housing. The sheer complexity of purchase is another major factor.

          But again, if you can afford to lose the money then you’re probably not the problem. The main problem, in the UK, is landlords on buy-to-let mortgages who cannot afford to lose.

          If the bank is already willing to loan money on the property, and rent must be higher than the mortgage payment as a condition on that loan, then all that happens is housing becomes more expensive.